


























LEEERELEPAR ERS ELL 


Seale 
' eatee 
ing SOUR VEPTL Tre i 
i aay (POT. Berne 
i} Resta iter iy 
ee? ‘ 5 
Heese i 
Pceeen Paddy 
Ser tr! i 
be 3: 
. Teepe: 
red ‘ 
; 4 
$48 
iY 
433, 
| eeee 
; 
vit 
sistas 
i. rt 
wrelt 
rt 
t 
r ; 
if ra 
ah 
\ : 
. { 
ij 
ef - ‘ ’ 
: 
; 
. ° { 
hit 


perateat 








Tail 


ui 


THE UNIVERSITY 
OF ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


220.40, 


W72¢6Ft 
1870 





Return this book on or before the 
Latest Date stamped below. 


University of Illinois Library 


E161 ——H+% 











Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2019 with funding from 
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 


httos://archive.org/details/grammarofidiomot00wine_0O 


A 


GRAMMAR 


OF 


THE IDIOM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 


PREPARED AS A SOLID BASIS FOR THE INTERPRETATION 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


BY 


DR. GEORGE BENEDICT WINER. 


SEVENTH EDITION, ENLARGED AND IMPROVED. 


BY 


DR. GOTTLIEB LUNEMANN, 


PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GOETTINGEN, 
. 





REVISED AND AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION. 





Andover: 
WARREN F. DRAPER. 


LONDON: TRUBNER AND CO. LEIPSIC: F. C. W. VOGEL. 
PHILADELPHIA: SMITH, ENGLISH, & CO. 


1870. 





s » 7 
» 
7 ¢ 
( 
» 
f 
‘i nm : 
' » é 2.4 
i 2 ‘ { i 
we: ! , heal Ap" pel 
e * + . 
‘ 

' of 5 

re | 4 
¢ Pi a , 
. (wy 
ibd 

. pay 
—~, 
= : . on * 
? 
\ 
a | 
4) aie 
@ 
7 ‘ 
‘ ' ar 
' 
' 


Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1869, by - 
| _ WARREN F. DRAPER, f. 
In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 


‘ 
y 
3 ANDOVER: 
PRINTED BY WARREN F. DRAPER, 


t PREFACE 10 THE SIXTH EDITION. 
oO 
ae 
a 
ce’ Wuen this Grammar first made its appearance, in 1822, the 
object proposed was to oppose the unbridled license with which 
the diction of the New Testament was then, and had long been, 
handled in commentaries and exegetical lectures; and to apply, 
as far as practicable, the results of an enlightened philology, as 
deduced and taught by Hermann and his school, to the study of 
the language of the New Testament. It was high time that some. 
voice should be raised against the inveterate empiricism of ex- 
positors, and that some effort should be made to emancipate the 
writers of the N. T. from the bondage of a perverted philology, 
which styled itself sacred and yet showed not the least respect 
towards the sacred authors and their well-considered phraseology. 

The fundamental error — the mwpa@rov xrevdos — of the Biblical 
philology and exegesis to which we refer, consisted ultimately in 
this, that neither the Hebrew nor the language of the N. T. was 
regarded as a living idiom (Herm. Eurip. Med. p. 401.), designed 
to be used by men as the medium of intercourse. Had scholars 
deliberately inquired, whether those departures from the current 
laws of speech which were assumed to exist in the Bible in such 
prodigious multitudes, were compatible with the essential princi- 
ples of a language intended for the ordinary purposes of life, they 
would not so arbitrarily have held every kind of anomaly to be 
permissible ; and would not have delighted to attribute to the 
Apostles in almost every verse an enallage or a substitution of the 
wrong construction for the right. 

The older commentaries belonging to the period of the Refor- 


mation are comparatively free from such perversions ; but when 
v 


674783 


vi PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION. 


we read certain commentaries of the 18th and 19th centuries still 
current, we are constrained to conclude that the main character- 
istic of the language of the N. T. is a total want of precision and 
regularity. For these interpreters are continually showing how 
here a wrong tense is used, there a wrong case, here a comparative 
for a positive, there 6 for tus, but instead of for, consequently for 
because, on the other side for on this side (what for so Isa. viii. 20). 
Such exegetical learning makes a reader quite impatient with the 
sacred writers for their ignorance of the ordinary principles of 
language. He cannot comprehend how such men in oral dis- 
course, where this lawlessness of speech must certainly have been 
still more conspicuous, could have made themselves understood 
even, much less how they could have won over to Christianity a 
great number of persons of education. 

But this system of explaining every difficulty by a pro or an 
wdem quod had a serious as well as a ludicrous aspect. For does 
not Scripture become, as an eminent linguist long ago intimated, 
like a waxen nose, which every one can twist as he pleases, in 
proportion to his ignorance of the learned tongues? Would it 
have been impossible, or even difficult, for such a man as Storr, for 
example, had the task been assigned him, to have found in the 
words of the Apostles any favorite notion whatever? And does 
such a view of N. T. diction accord with the dignity of sacred 
writers?! Every one who now-a-days should insist on using in 
the ordinary intercourse of life such perversions of language as 
the following : I shall come to thee to-day for I came to thee to-day ; 
no prophet ever came out of Galilee for no prophet will ever come 
out of Galilee (Jno. vil. 52); L call you no longer servants for I 
did not call you mere servants (Jno. xv. 15); for Jesus himself tes- 
tified, that a prophet has no honor in his own country for although 
Jesus himself testified, etc. (Jno. iv. 44); I saw the forest that was 
magnificently covered with foliage for a forest that was, ete. 
(Jno. v. 17); send me the book, and Iwill read tt, for thou wilt 


1 Herm. ad Viger. p. 786: Diligenter caveant tirones, ne putent, viros spiritu sancto 
afflatos sprevisse sermonem mortalium, sed meminerint potius, illam interpretandi 
rationem, qua nonnulli theologorum utuntur, nzhil esse nisi blasphemiam. 

2 To what extent expositors of the old school were devoid of all sense of expression 
may be seen (instar omnium) in Kiihndl’s reasoning, Mt. p. 120 sq. 


PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION. Vil 


send me the book, etc.; to whom it was revealed that for to whom 
this was revealed, yet so that, etc. (1 Pet. i. 121); Christ is dead 
therefore risen again for but risen again; he is not more learned 
for he is not learned ; he rejoiced that he should see, etc., and he 
saw and rejoiced, for he would have rejoiced if he had seen, etc., 
he rejoiced even at what he already saw (Jno. viii. 56) ; he began to 
wash for he washed (Jno. xiii. 56), and the like,— would be re- 
garded as having lost his reason. Were all the instances of a quid 
pro quo which many expositors during the decennaries just past 
have put into the mouth of the Apostles to be collected, the list 
could not fail to be astounding. 

When, at the commencement of my career as a university 
tutor, I undertook to combat this absurd system of interpretation, 
I was aware that there were scholars far more competent for the 
task than myself; and, in fact, what I accomplished in the earlier 
editions of this book was but imperfect. My attempt, however, 
was cordially encouraged by distinguished men, and in particular 
by Vater and D. Schulz. Others pointed out, sometimes indeed 
in a spirit of bitterness, the imperfections of the work ; and to 
these unsparing critics I have been greatly indebted, not only in 
this publication, but in all my exegetical labors. By discussions 
annexed to the second edition (1828) the grammatical contents 
of the work were enlarged, and the third edition came out greatly 
improved, both in copiousness and accuracy, by a more extensive 
study of the writings of the Greek prose authors and of the Hel- 
lenistic Jews. From that time forward I have labored incessantly 
to improve the work ; and I have been animated by the aid which 
philological and exegetical publications suited to my purpose have 
furnished me in rich abundance. At the same time, the intelligent 
investigation of the N. T. diction has been daily gaining ground ; 
and the use of the Grammar by commentators has been growing 
more and more evident. The work began to attract the attention 
of professed philologists even. At the same time I have always 
been far from thinking the correct grammatical elucidation of the 
N. T. to be its only proper exposition ; and I have, in silence, 
allowed some to regard me even as an opponent of what is now 
called the theological interpretation. 


1 On this passage see my Erlanger Pfingstprogr. 1830. 4to. 


Vill PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION. 


The present edition — the sixth — will show again on every 
page, that I have spared no effort to arrive at truth. Deeply, how- 
ever, do I regret, that in the midst of my labors I was overtaken 
by a nervous affection of the eyes, which has brought me to the 
verge of total blindness. This calamity has compelled me to 
employ the eyes and hands of others to complete this edition. I 
cannot omit this opportunity of expressing publicly my sincere 
thanks to all the young friends whose indefatigable assistance only 
has enabled me, in spite of my frequent forebodings, to accomplish 
my task. | 

The change in the arrangement of the matter in Part III. will, 
I trust, be approved. In. other respects, it has been my especial 
aim to treat every point with greater completeness, and in smaller 
space, than in previous editions ; (the text of the Grammar now 
occupies evght sheets fewer than before). With this view I 
adopted all possible abbreviations in the Biblical and Greek 
citations.1 It is hoped, however, that these, as well as those for 
the names of more recent authors,? will everywhere be intelligible. 
The citations have been verified anew throughout; and, so far as 
I know, not a single work that has appeared since 1844 has been 
left unused, or at least unnoticed. 

The text of the N. T. I have uniformly, that is except when 
there was a question of various readings, quoted in accordance 
with the second Leipsic edition of Dr. Tischendorf, which at 
present has probably the most extensive circulation. 

May this new revision— the last the work will ever receive 
from me — contribute to the diffusion of Biblical truth, so far as 
any such work can. 


1 The Greek writers are only quoted by the page when the division by chapters has 
not obtained currency: Plato, according to the edition by Stephan. ; Strabo and Athe- 
naeus, by Casaubon ; Demosthen. and Isocrat., by H. Wolf; Dionys. Hal., by Reiske ; 
Dio Cass., by Reimar. ; Dio Chrysost., by Morell. 

2 It may be remarked here, that instead of Kuznoel (the Latinized form of the name), 
Kiihnol, as the family wrote their name in German, is used everywhere, except in Latin 
citations. 


Lerpsic, October, 1855. 


PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION. 


Winer’s foreboding that the sixth edition would be -the last 
revision from his hand has unfortunately been realized. But even 
while sensible of his approaching death, the indefatigable man 
took incessant interest in his Grammar, and labored to the very 
end of his life to perfect it. Without altering the general distri- 
bution of matter as it appeared in the sixth edition, he constantly 
improved the book in details,—by additions of greater or less 
extent in more than three hundred and forty places, by erasures 
‘and reconstructions, by the multiplication of parallel passages 
from biblical and from profane literature, by a more precise defini- 
tion of thoughts and expressions, by the correction of trivial over- 
sights and mistakes, etc. etc. Thus he has not left us without 
bequeathing to us in this book a legacy richer than ever. 

When the publisher confided to me the preparation of the 
new edition which had become necessary, I could not hesitate 
a moment what course to adopt. It was clear to me, in the first 
place, that the book must retain absolutely and throughout the 
character of a work by Winer. This was demanded, on the one 
hand, by reverence towards the departed author; whom no one 
has hitherto surpassed— whom hardly any one among those now 
living will surpass —in a department which he cultivated with 
especial fondness for more than a generation. It appeared also, 
on the other hand, to be a sacred duty towards the theological 
public, to whom Winer’s work, on account of its scholarly exact- 
ness and copious erudition, justly became long ago a precious 
possession and a universally acknowledged authority. I con- 


sidered myself, therefore, as bound to abstain from every radical 
2 ix 


xX PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION. 


alteration of the text, either as respects the general arrangement 
or as respects the development of details. My task, rather, I 
perceived to be merely this: while preserving in its integrity the 
character of Winer’s book, to increase as far as possible, in 
the spirit and intent of Winer, its usefulness for students of the 
present day. Ihave taken especial pains to work into the text 
the numerous manuscript notes from Winer’s hand. In doing 
this, Winer’s own words have been retained as far as it was any 
way feasible; and changes, when necessary, have always been 
restricted so closely, that they affect merely what is unessential, 
never the matter itself. Further, I have made it a point, not 
merely to correct silently the obvious oversights and mistakes 
I met with—and they proved to be more numerous than I 
expected —and to give to the cross-references a definiteness 
in which they were often deficient, but also to consult, as far 
as pertinent, the theological and philological works which have 
appeared since Winer’s death, and to use in this new edition what 
they contained worthy of attention. Whenever, too, a question 
of textual criticism is involved, regard has been paid to the read- 
ings of the Codex Sinaiticus. Yet great self-restraint has been 
imposed throughout, in order not to augment excessively a work 
already of considerable bulk. | 

Winer’s additions and alterations have been directly incorpo- 
rated with the text without being indicated by a particular sign. 
They will be plain to every one who will take the pains to com- 
pare the seventh edition with the sixth. On the other hand, the 
additions which I have made have been in all cases marked by 
square brackets. The square brackets already used by Winer 
here and there, have consequently been made to give place to 
other signs; such as round brackets, dashes, ete. In conclusion 
it may be remarked that very great care has been taken to secure 
typographical accuracy. 

And now may the book, in this its seventh edition, subserve its 
purpose to afford the interpretation of the New Testament a stable 
foundation. 


DR. LUNEMANN. 


GorringEN, August 19, 1866. 


+. 
® 





AMERICAN EDITOR'S PREFACE. 


Wiver’s Grammar is now for the fourth time rendered accessi- 
_ ble to English readers. A translation of the first edition was 
made by the late Professors Stuart and Robinson, and published 
at Andover in 1825. The fourth edition of the original, rendered 
into English by Professors Agnew and Ebbeke, appeared in 1839. 
Twenty years later Professor Masson’s translation of the sixth, 
German edition was published at Edinburgh (and Philadelphia). 
The present work was originally announced (in April 1866) as a 
revision of Professor Masson’s. The labor of revision was drawing 
towards completion, and nearly three hundred pages of the book 
_ had been stereotyped, when appeared the seventh German edition, 
under the supervision of Dr. Liinemann. Some unavoidable 
delay ensued before the revision and the printing were begun 
anew in conformity with this new edition. These facts explain 
why the publication of the present volume follows the original 
announcement so tardily. 

The book still remains, substantially, a revision of Professor 
Masson’s translation. The changes introduced have been such as 
could be made upon the printed sheets of that work. This circum- 
stance has frequently affected their form and sometimes their num- 
ber. But although Professor Masson’s version has been retained 
as the basis of this, it is believed that hardly a paragraph of his 
work remains altogether unaltered ; and sometimes the alterations 
amount in effect to a new translation, —a translation which for 
entire pages has but a few phrases in common with its predecessor. 

In makfng the changes described it has been the editor’s aim 
to render the version a faithful reproduction of the original. A 


faithful translation, he believes, should not only be free from 
€ : 
x1 


Xil AMERICAN EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


intentional addition,! omission, or alteration, but in a work of 
this kind should adhere as closely to the author’s expression as 
English idiom will permit.. Accordingly, should the renderings 
seem, here and there, to have lost a little in ease, a compensation 
will be found, it is hoped, in their increased accuracy. 

It has not been judged necessary to annotate any interpretation 
having a doctrinal bearing, even though such interpretation be 
debatable on grammatical grounds, or to qualify an expression or 
two respecting the sacred writers which may strike many English 
readers as unwarrantably free; for the book is likely to be used 
either by students with mature understandings in exercise, or by 
pupils under the guidance of competent teachers. The reasons 
which have led the editor to disregard the request that he would 
abridge and otherwise alter the original work will be suggested 
by Professor Linemann’s remarks upon this point. 

The notation of the sections, etc., has been carefully retained 
throughout. When it could be done conveniently, the cross-refer- 
ences have been rendered more definite by subjoining the number 
of the page. ‘To aid those who may use this book in connection 
with Commentaries which refer to the Grammar by pages, the 
paging of the sixth and seventh German editions, as well as of 
Professor Masson’s translation, has been noted on the outer margin 
of the leaves. The indexes have been revised, and that of Greek - 
words has been considerably enlarged. Further, the Index of 
Passages in the New Testament has been made complete, and the 
references themselves have been carefully verified ; this laborious 
work has been performed by Mr. G. W. Warren, formerly a student 
in this Seminary, at present Professor of Biblical Interpretation 
in the Baptist Theological Seminary at Chicago, Illinois. This 
Index, it is believed, will be highly valued by students. A glance 
at it will show with how little exaggeration the book may be called 
a grammatical commentary-on the more difficult texts of the New 
Testament. Other references the editor has been content simply 
to transfer to the pages of the translation. This will account for 
their frequent want of uniformity. 

Pains have been taken to give the work that typographical 


1 In a single passage it seemed necessary to append a note; see page 598. 





AMERICAN EDITOR’S PREFACE. xiii 


accuracy which is a leading requisite in a satisfactory manual. 
On this point, however, the editor would not speak too confi- 
dently ; for even in the seventh German edition, which is as 
superior to the sixth in accuracy of typography as it is in elegance, 
errata have been discovered by the score. It is hoped that the 
mistakes which have slipped in, will not exceed in number those 
detected, and silently rectified, in the German original. 

In conclusion, the editor would express the desire that the 
book in its present form may both facilitate and increase that 
patient, reverent study of the letter of the Inspired Word, which 
is indispensable to the fullest reception of it as spirit and life. 


J. HENRY THAYER. 


THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, ANDOVER, Mass. 
October, 1868. 












ap : ye 
a ey, 
Nap a 
7 Sti ah 1 
é i, ve Wed ar ie ay Ceaytt hs fal a “, 
Hk | ; A teas ie 
| eh. Cad VF Sy: Lie es rem a 


i fo "> 








Y 


BE aa i A 


bs b 


a Af rly 





‘ 
1 ‘ey mi aed re, . ial tiie 
ey peireaie boty 
As 
} f - 
j ' ry > ww 
4 ~ §* ne « a 4 
‘ 


CAUEING LLIN BE S:. 


INTRODUCTION. 


On the Scope, Treatment, and History of N.T. Grammar, §§ 1-4, 1 


PART FIRST. 


ON THE CHARACTER OF THE N.T. DICTION ESPECIALLY 
IN ITS GRAMMATICAL ASPECTS. 


§ 1. Various Opinions concerning the Character of the N.T. Diction, . 42 


§ 2. Basis of the N. T. Diction, : ; : ; ; : : 20 
§ 3. Hebrew-Aramaic Tinge of the N.T. Diction, . ° : : 27 
§ 4. Grammatical Character of the N.T. Diction, . : i i 35 


PART SECOND. 


THE GRAMMATICAL FORMS AS RESPECTS THEIR FORMA- 
TION (INFLECTION). 


§ 5. Orthography and Orthographic Principles, . . . 40 
§ 6. Accentuation, . ‘ 4 ; r ; , : i ‘ « “49 
§ 7. Punctuation, . ; ‘ : ‘ ; : ; ? ‘ 55 
§ 8. Rare Forms of the First and Second Declensions, . . | . 60 
§ 9. Rare Forms of the Third Declension, . ; : P ; Lau G4 
§ 10. Foreign Words and Words which are Indeclinable, : : a OG 
§ 11. Inflection and Comparison of Adjectives, . Sar ; a 6e 
§ 12. Augment and Reduplication of Regular Verbs, : : : wee 
§ 13. Rare Forms in the Tenses and Persons of Regular Verbs, : ey 
§ 14. Rare Inflections of Verbs in M1 and of Irregular Verbs, . : a) ame 
§ 15. Defective Verbs, . : ‘ ? , 4 : : ‘ - 8 


§ 16. Formation of Words, ; : ‘ ; ; 7 : ; a os 
xv 


CONTENTS. 


PART THIRD. 
SYNTAX. 


IMPORT AND USE OF THE SEVERAL PARTS OF SPEECH. 


CHAPTER I. THE ARTICLE. 


The Article as a Pronoun, : : 

Articulus Praepositivus, a. before Nouns, ; 

Omission of the Article before Nouns, . - : 

Articulus Praepositivus, b. with Attributives,. . . 
CHAPTER II. PRONOUNS. 

The Pronouns in general, : : Bue. Steh hs 

Personal and Possessive Pronouns, . : ° ° 

The Demonstrative Pronoun, . 7 : : “ 3 

The Relative Pronoun, 


The Interrogative Pronoun and the Indefinite Pronoun TI, 


Hebraisms in connection with certain Pronouns, 
CHAPTER II. THE NOUN. 

Number and Gender of Nouns, : : ; 4 - 

The Cases in general, . ; : : : “ 2 

Nominative and Vocative, : : “ : ‘ 

Genitive, . w : : 

Dative, $ : ° 

Accusative, 

Connection of a Verb (neuter) with its dependent Noun 

of Prepositions, 

Adjectives, 

Comparative, 4 ° . 

Superlative, S . 

Numerals, : 


CHAPTER IV. THE VERB. 


Active and Middle Voices, : : : é ° 
The Passive, . ; : : ; : : ° ° 


The Tenses, . " : ° ° e ° e ° 


by means 


260 
264 


g 41. 
§ 42. 
§ 43. 
§ 44. 
§ 45. 


§ 46. 
§ 47. 


§ 48. 
§ 49. 
§ 50. 
§ 51. 
§ 52. 
§ 53. 
§ 54. 
§ 55. 
§ 56. 
§ 57. 


§ 58. 
§ 59. 


§ 60. 
§ 61. 


§ 62. 
§ 63. 


§ 64. 
§ 65, 


CONTENTS. 


The Indicative, Subjunctive, and Optative Moods, . . . = . 
The Conjunction “AN with the three Moods, . . . . ~~ . 
The Imperative, .  . 6s Nat ler eR” ail oe 
The Infinitive, fig ia a: acl ear a 
The Participle, See a eee ee eens ae PE OY NE 04 


CHAPTER V. THE PARTICLES. 


iieeeericies m general, ae We ae, 

The Prepositions in general, and such as govern the Genitive in 
particular, . : oes “pit ae STE edb iidy 6V ai, ealoe te 

Prepositions with the Dative, . . ‘ mint aie tae ‘ ; 

Erepostions with the Accusative, .. . . «. +. « -« 

Interchange, Accumulation, and Repetition of Prepositions, 

Use of Prepositions in Circumlocutions, . ; : 

Construction of Verbs compounded with Prepositions, . are 

Conjunctions, . ; . ; , ; aSya's 

Adverbs, . ; : 3 _ ‘ ° ‘ . ‘ ‘ ° 

Negative Particles, . : . ° a ; . we 

Construction of Negative Particles, . 


Interrogative Particles, 


STRUCTURE OF PROPOSITIONS, AND THEIR COMBINA- 
TION INTO PERIODS. 

The Proposition and its Component Parts in general, 

Extension of a Simple Sentence in its Subject and Predicate : 
Attributives, Apposition, . 

Connection of Sentences: Periods, 

Position of Words and Clauses, especially when Irregular (Hy- 
perbaton), 

Interrupted Structure of Sentences ; Parentheses, 

Broken and Heterogeneous Structure of Sentences; Anacoluthon, 
Oratio variata, 

Defective Structure of Sentences ; Ellipsis, Aposiopesis, 

Redundant Structure of Sentences; Pleonasm (Superfluity), 


Diffuseness, . . . . . . ° . ° ° 


XV 


PAGE 


281 
302 
310 
317 
340 


356 


512 


XVill CONTENTS. 


§ 66. Condensed and Expanded Structure of Sentences (Breviloquence, 
Constructio Praegnans, Attraction, etc.), 
§ 67, Abnormal Relation of Individual Words in a Sentence (Hypallage), . 


§ 68. Regard to Sound in the Structure of Sentences; Paronomasia and 


Play upon Words (Annominatio), Parallelism, Verse,. . . 
INDEX. 
J. Index of Principal Subjects, "2 2 2 ci) > Aner 


If. Index of Greek Words and Forms, . - - 
III. Index of Passages in the N.T. explained orcited, . . . . 


PAGE 


619 


631 


636 


643 
652 
668 


INTRODUCTION. 


ON THE SCOPE, TREATMENT, AND HISTORY OF N. T. GRAMMAR. 


§ 1. Tue language of the N. T., like every other, presents two 
aspects for scientific consideration, inasmuch as the words which 
we find in the N. T. following one another in connected discourse 
may be considered either by themselves, in reference to their origin 
and their meaning (the material element); or as respects their 
legitimate employment in the structure of clauses and _ periods 
(the formal element). The former is the business of Lexico- 
graphy; the latter belongs to Grammar, which must be carefully 
distinguished from N. 'T’. Stylistics (Rhetoric). 


On distinguishing Lexicography from Grammar, see Pott in the Kieler 
Allgem. Monatsschr. 1851. Juli. The Lexicography of the N.T., of 
which Synonymy forms a very important part, though its importance was 
not duly recognized till of late, has always been cultivated in a merely 
practical manner. A theory of it, however, may be laid down; which 
might be styled Lexicology,—a term that has recently come into use. 
That this theory has not as yet been fully developed and perfected is the 
less surprising, since even the classic tongues remain destitute of a Lex- 
icology; and in the department of Exegetical Theology a theory of Biblical 
Criticism (higher and lower) is still a desideratum. This deficiency, 
however, has had a decidedly unfavorable effect on practical lexicography, 
as might be easily shown by a close examination of the lexicographical 
works on the N.'T. which have hitherto appeared, even the most recent 
not excepted.’ 

N. T. Stylistics or Rhetoric (the latter appellation has already been em- 
ployed by Glassius and by Bauer, author of Rhetorica Paulina), should 
exhibit the characteristics of N.T. style in its freedom and individuality, 


1 For some remarks on the theory of lexicography, see Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik, 
S. 49. 84. A commencement towards a comparative lexicography has been made by 
Zeller, in his theolog. Jahrb. I. 443 ff. 

1 


14 


2 
Tth ed. 
2 


6th ed. 


15 


2 INTRODUCTION. 


restricted only by the character and aim of the composition ; and this it 
should do both generally, and in reference to the peculiarities of the genera 
dicendi and of the respective writers (cf. Hand, Lehrb. d. lat. Styls. p. 
25 sq.). In this department much remains to be done, (particularly as 
respects the theory of rhetorical figures, erroneous views respecting which 
have at all times caused much mischief in the interpretation of the N. T.). 
The preparatory labors of Bauer and Dan. Schulze,' however, are of service ; 
and Wilke has made a compilation (N.'T. Rhetorik, Dresd. 1843. 8vo.) 
worthy of attention. Schleiermacher had already given excellent hints 
in his Hermeneutik. As respects the discourses of Jesus and the apostolic 
epistles, it would be best to follow the example of the ancient rhetoricians, 
and treat in Biblical Rhetoric of the style of reasoning. This would 
prevent the excessive subdivision of N.T. Exegetics, and the separation 
of kindred subjects, which, when treated in connection, afford mutual light. 
Cf., besides, Gersdorf, Beitriige zur Sprachcharakterist.‘d. N.'T. 1 Bd. 
S. 7; Keil, Lehrb. der Hermeneutik, S. 28; C. J. Kellman, Diss. de usu 
Rhetorices hermeneutico, Gryph. 1766. 4to. 

It may be incidentally remarked, that in their exposition of Exegetical 
Theology our Encyclopaedias still leave much to be desired. And in 
practice, too, N. T. Hermeneutics is not properly distinguished from N. T. 
Philology,? as we may call that entire department of Exegetical Theology 
which has just been sketched. 


§ 2. A grammatical exposition of the idiom of the N.T., in so 
far as it is a variety of the Greek language, would strictly consid- 
ered involve only a systematic comparison of that idiom with the 
grammatical structure of the later Greek literary language ; for 
with this last the idiom of the N.'T. is closely connected, both 
chronologically and generically. As, however, this later Greek 
itself has not yet been delineated in its peculiarities as a whole, 
and as the idiom of the N. T. also exhibits throughout the influence 
of a foreign tongue (the Hebrew-Aramaic) upon the Greek, N. T. 
Grammar must be so far extended as to comprise a scientific 


1K. Lud. Bauer, Rhetorica Paulina. Halle, 1782. 3 pts. in 2 Vol. 8vo.; also Philologia 
Thucydideo-Paulina. Halle, 1773. 8vo. (To these may be added: H. G. Tzschirner, 
observationes Pauli Ap. epistolar. scriptoris ingenium concernentes. Viteb. 1800. 
8 Partes. 4to.) J. Dan. Schulze, der schriftstellerische Werth und Charakter des 
Johannes. Weissenf. 1803. 8vo.; also, der schriftsteller. Werth und Char. des Petrus, 
Judas und Jacobus. eb. 1802. 8vo.; also, iiber den schriftst. Char. und Werth des 
Evang. Markus, in Keil and Teschirner’s Analekt, 2 Bds. 2 St. S. 104-151. 3 St. S. 
69-132. 3 Bds. 1 St. S. 88-127. 

21 should prefer this old and intelligible appellation, ‘‘ Philologia sacra N. T.” (cf. 
J. Ch. Beck, conspect. system. philol. sacrae. Bas. 1760. 12 Section. 4to.) to that which 
Schleiermacher, following classic usage, proposes, “‘Grammar”; see Liicke, on his Her- 
meneutik, S. 10. 


INTRODUCTION. 9 


exposition of the mode in which the Jewish authors of the N. T. 
wrote the Greek of their time. 


If it were proposed e.g. to write a grammar of the Egyptian or Alexan- 
drian variety of the Greek (as this variety had been moulded there in the 
mouths of Greek-speaking residents from various parts of the world), it 
would be enough to collect all its distinctive peculiarities, that is to say, 
all that make it a separate dialect; not indeed simply stringing them 
together in a fragmentary way, but arranging them systematically under 
the several divisions of grammar, and pointing out how and to what extent 
they respectively modified the general laws of the Greek language (by 
abandoning niceties, misusing analogies, etc.). The idiom of the N.'T., 
as it is a variety of the later Greek, should it require a grammar of its 
own, could only be exhibited as a species of a species; and thus a grammar 
of the N. IT. would presuppose a grammar of, the later Greek. But N.T. 
Grammar cannot easily be so restricted even in thought, still less can the 
idea be carried out to advantage. For, on the one hand, the Grammar 
of later Greek, especially in its oral popular form, has not yet been scien- 
tifically investigated ;' consequently, the groundwork for N. T. Grammar 
exists in thought rather than in fact. On the other hand, the idiom 
of the N.'T. displays also the influence of a non-cognate language, the 
Hebrew-Aramaic, upon the Greek. N.T. Grammar, therefore, must 
extend its limits in two directions: Presuming the reader to be acquainted 
with the Grammar of classic Greek, it must point out in the manner 
already described the peculiarities of the later Greck, as exhibited in the 


Tth ed. 


3 
6th ed. 


N.T.; and likewise show, in the same scientific way, how and to what 


extent the Greek was modified by Hebrew-Aramaic influence. It would 
be wrong, however, to attempt to keep the two quite separate,’ for the 
‘mingling of the (later) Greek with the national (or Jewish) element in 
the mind of the writers of the N. T., produced a single composite syntax, 
which must be recognized and exhibited in its essential unity. 


1 Valuable information, though rather lexical than grammatical, will be found in 
Lobeck’s notes on Phrynichi Eclog. Lips. 1820. 8vo. Previously Zrmisch (on Herodian) 
and Fischer (de vitiis Lexicor. N. T.) had collected much useful matter. Copious hints 
relative to the graecitas fatiscens have been more recently presented in the improved 
texts of the Byzantine writers, and the indices (of very unequal merit) appended to 
most of them in the Bonn edition; as well as in Boissonade’s notes in the anecdot. 
graec. (Paris, 1829 ff. V. 8.), and in his editions of Marinus, Philostratus, Nicetas 
Eugen., Babrius, etc. ; and, lastly, in Mullach’s ed. of Hierocles (Berl. 1853. 8vo.), 
[cf. also his Grammatik der griech. Vulgarsprache in histor. Entwickelung. Berl. 1856. 
8vo.]. To the later Greek clement appropriate reference is made likewise in Lobeck’s 
Paralipomena grammaticae Gr. Lips. 1837. 2 pts. 8vo., in his Pathologiac sermonis Gr. 
proleg. Lips. 1843. 8vo., and pathol. Graeci serm. elementa, Konigsb. 1853. I. 8vo., 
and also in Jnuarixdy s. verbor. Gr. et nominum verball. technologia, ib. 1846. 8vo. 

2 For judicious remarks on the lexical treatment of Hebraisms, see Schletermacher’s 
Hermeneutik, S. 65. 


16 


4 | INTRODUCTION. 


This mode of treating N.'T. Grammar will undergo a partial change 
whenever the grammar of the later Greek language shall have received 
an independent exposition; for then it will not be necessary to prove the 
peculiarities of this later language by examples, —a task from which the 
N.T. grammarian cannot for the time be released. But one portion of 
the present contents of a grammar will gradually disappear, viz. the 


4 polemic, which opposes inveterate and deeply rooted prejudices, or errors 


Tth ed. 


4 
6th ed, 


which have again made their appearance. As yet, however, this negative 
vindication of the true character of the diction of the N. T. still continues 
indispensable ; for, well-known expositors even of very recent date (Kiihndél, 
Flatt, Klausen in his Evangeliencomm.) have shown us again how deeply 
rooted is that old grammatical empiricism which deems it an abomination 
ultra Fischerum (or even Storrium) sapere. 

Special grammars of separate portions of the N. T., as of the writings 
of John, of Paul, are clearly out of the question. The distinctive qualities 
that mark the diction of these writers in particular, consist almost entirely 
in the use of certain favorite expressions, or relate to the department of 
Rhetoric, as may be seen from the observations of Blackwall in his Crit. 
Sacr. N. T. II. 2. 8. p. 822. sqq. ed. Lips. To this also peculiarities in 
the collocation of words are mostly to be assigned., Grammar is but 
seldom affected by these peculiarities of individuals. Accordingly Schulze 
and Schulz? have, on the whole, formed a more correct estimate of such 
peculiarities of diction than Gersdorf, whose well-known work —no great 
contribution of swre results even to verbal criticism — must have almost 
proved its own refutation, if it had had to be continued on the principles 
hitherto laid down. 


§ 8. Although investigation into the language of the N. T. is 
the basis of all sound interpretation, yet N.'T. Grammar has been 
till a recent period almost entirely excluded by Biblical philologists 
from the range of their inquiries. While the lexical element of 
the N.'T. language has been the subject of repeated investigation, 
the grammatical has been treated at the most only so far as it 
stood connected with the discussion of the Hebraisms of the N.T.? 


1 His remarks on the character of the N. T. diction are contained in his dissertation 
on the Parable of the Steward (Bresl. 1821. 8vo.) and that on the Lord’s Supper 
(Leipzig, 1824; 2d improved edit. 1831. 8vo.), and also in several articles in the 
Wachlersch. theol. Annalen. In both dissertations, which are of an exegetical char- 
acter, his observations, mostly acute, seem out of place, as they throw very little light 
on exegesis. Textual criticism, however, might have turned his views to good account, 
if the distinguished writer had only been pleased to give them to us in full. Cf. also 
Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik, S. 129. 

2 An honorable exception among earlier expositors is the nearly forgotton G. F. 
Heupel, who in his copious and almost purely philological Commentary on the Gospel 
of Mark (Strassburg, 1716. 8vo.) makes many excellent grammatical observations. 


INTRODUCTION. oan 


Only Casp. Wyss (1650) and G. Pasor (1655) conceived more 
completely the idea of a N.T. grammar; but their efforts were 
unavailing to accomplish its recognition as a special department 
of exegetical discipline. During a period of one hundred and 
sixty years after them, Haab was the first to publish a special 
treatise on the Grammar of the N. T.; but his rather uncritical 
work, besides being restricted to the Hebraisms, was adapted to 
retard the science, rather than to promote it. 


The first author who in some degree collected and explained the pecu- 
liarities of the N.T. diction, was the celebrated Sal. Glass (1656) in his 
Philologia Sacra, the third book of which is entitled Grammatica Sacra, 
and the fourth Grammaticae Sacrae Appendix.’ But as he. everywhere 
makes the Hebrew his point of departure, and touches upon the language 
of the N. T. only so far as it coincides with that, his treatise, to say nothing 
of its deficiencies, can be mentioned in a history of N.'T. Grammar only 
as a weak performance. It serves to remind us, however, of the two 
writers mentioned above, whose very names, as well as their productions, 
which belong here, had fallen into almost total oblivion. The one, Casp. 
Wyss, Prof. of Greek in the Gymnasium of Zurich (71659), published 
Dialectologia Sacra, in qua quicquid per universum N. F. contextum in 
apostolica et voce et phrasi a communi Graecor. lingua eoque grammatica 
analogia discrepat, methodo congrua disponitur, accurate definitur et om- 
nium sacri contextus exemplorum inductione illustratur. Tigur. 1650. 
pp. 324 (besides the appendix), small 8vo. In this treatise the grammatical 
peculiarities of N. TI. diction are arranged under the following heads: 
Dialectus Attica, Ionica, Dorica, Aeolica, Boeotica, Poetica, “EBpaifouca. 
This arrangement is awkward in the extreme, since kindred topics are 
separated and frequently are discussed in four different places. The 
writer’s acquaintance with the Greek dialects, also, was clearly not beyond 
the ordinary scholarship of his time, as the very mention of a special 
dialectus poetica shows,and an examination of what he calls Attic renders 
still more manifest. Still, as a collection of examples, which in several 
sections is absolutely complete, the volume has value; and as respects the 
grammatical Hebraisms of the N.'T. the author’s moderation might well 
have been imitated by his contemporaries. 

George Pasor, Prof. of Greek at Franeker (¢1637), known by his small 
Lexicon of the N. T.,— which has been several times republished, finally 
by J. F. Fischer, — left among his papers a grammar of the N. T., which 
his son, Matthias Pasor, Prof. of Theology at Gréningen (1608), pub- 


The Greek erudition of J. F. Hombergk, in his Parerga Sacra. Amstel. 1719. 4to., and 
of H. Heisen, in his Novae Hypotheses Interpretandae felicius Ep. Jacobi. Brem. 1739. 
Ato., is lexical rather than grammatical. 


4 In Dathe’s edition this Grammatica Sacra forms, as is well known, the jirst book, 
. 


17 


7th ed. 


6th ed, 


18 


6 
7th ed. 


Sth ed. 


6 4 INTRODUCTION. — 

lished, with additions and improvements of his own, under the following 
title: G. Pasoris Grammatica Graeca Sacra N. T. in tres libros distributa. 
Gréning. 1655. pp. 787. 8vo. This work is now a literary rarity,’ though 
it is far more fitted than the Lexicon to transmit the author’s name to 
posterity. It is divided, as the title indicates, into three books. The first 
contains the Inflections; the second, the Syntax (244-530) ; the third, 
seven appendices: de nominibus N. T., de verbis N. T., de verbis anomalis, 
de dialectis N.T., de accentibus, de praxi grammaticae, de numeris s. 
arithmetica graeca. ‘The second book and the Appendix de dialectis N. T? 
are the most valuable portions of the work. For in the first book, and in 
most of the appendices which form the third, he treats of the ordinary 
subjects of a general Greek grammar, superfluously inserting e.g. full 
paradigms of the Greek nouns and verbs. The syntax is elaborated with 
great accuracy and copiousness. The writer points out what is Hebraistic, 
but seldom adduces parallels from native Greek authors. This useful 
volume, however, is without a full index. 

During the interval from Pasor to Haab, the Grammar of the N. T. 
was treated but incidentally in treatises on the style of the N. T., e.g. by 
Leusden (de Dialectis N. T.) and Olearius (de Stylo N. T., pp. 257-271). 
But these authors confined themselves almost exclusively to Hebraisms, 
and by representing as Hebraistic much pure Greek phraseology, they 
involved in confusion again the whole inquiry concerning the Grammar 
of the N.T. Georgi was the first to vindicate the Greek character of 
numerous constructions usually regarded as Hebraistic, although even he 
did not escape one-sidedness. His writings attracted but little attention ; 
while the works of Vorst and Leusden now obtained through the efforts 
of Fischer new currency, and Storr’s well-known book ® was allowed for 
many years to exert its pernicious influence on the interpretation of the 
N. T. without restraint. 

From the school of Storr appeared Ph. H. Haab (rector of Schweigern, 
in the kingdom of Wiirtemberg, 1833) with his Hebrew-Greek Grammar 
of the N. T., prefaced by F. G. v. Siiskind. Tiibing. 1815. 8vo. Over- 
looking the pure Greek element in the N.T. diction, he directed his 


1 Even Foppen (Bibliotheca Belgica, Tom. I. p. 342), who gives a list of Pasor’s 
other writings, does not mention this work. Salthen, Cat. Biblioth. Lib. Rar. (Regiom. 
1751. 8vo.) p. 470, bears witness to its extreme rarity, and D. Gerdesius, in his Florileg. 
Hist. Crit. Libr. Rar. (Groning. 1763. 8vo.) p. 272. 

2 Pasor had already himself added this appendix, under the title Idea (syllabus 
brevis) Graecar. N. T. Dialectorum, to the first edition of his Syllabus Graeco-Lat. 
omnium N. T. vocum. Amstel. 1632.12mo. At the end he promises the above full 
Grammatica N. T. 

3 Observatt. ad analog. et syntaxin Hebr. Stuttg. 1779. 8vo. Some acute gram- 
matical observations, especially on enallage temporum, particularum, and the like, are 
to be found in J. G. Straube, diss. de emphasi graecae linguae N. T. in wv. d. Honert, 


p- 70 sqq. 


INTRODUCTION; 7 
attention merely to grammatical Hebraisms, and in the arrangement of 
the whole he followed the works of Storr and Weckherlin (Hebr. Gram. 
2 Pts.). If the reviewer in Bengel’s Archiv (1 B.S. 406 ff.) is to be 
credited, “the author has accomplished his task with such diligence, such 
sound judgment, such accuracy, and such nice and comprehensive knowl- 
edge of language, as must obtain for it the approbation of all friends of 
the well-grounded interpretation of the N.T.’ <A very different and 
almost entirely opposite opinion has been expressed, however, by two 
scholars who must be regarded as most competent and impartial judges in 
this department: in the n. theol. Annal. 1816. 2 B. S. 859-879, and (by 
deWette?) in the A. LZ. 1816. N. 39-41. §. 805-326. After long and 
various use of the book, I am compelled to say that I entirely concur in 
_ their decision. The principal fault of the book consists in the author’s 
not having correctly distinguished the classic Greek element from the 
Hebraistic in the diction of the N.T., and in his having consequently 
adduced as Hebraistic much either that is common to all cultivated lan- 
guages, or that occurs as frequently in the classics as in the N. T.; while 
from his partiality to Storr’s views, he has quite misinterpreted numerous 
passages of the N. T. by forcing Hebraisms upon them (see proof below). 
Moreover, the book is full of confusion, the matter is arranged most 
arbitrarily, and the whole begins with a section on Tropes !—a subject 
not belonging to Grammar at all. The last of the reviewers mentioned 
above does not, accordingly, seem too severe in concluding his criticism 
with these words: “Seldom have we met a work which was so complete 
a failure as this, and against the use of which we must warn the public so 
emphatically.” 


§ 4. Further, the detached grammatical remarks in commentaries 
on the books of the N.-T., in miscellanies, and in exegetical mon- 
ographs, though sometimes exhibiting creditable research, failed 
to furnish, all taken together, a complete discussion of the Gram- 
mar of the N. T. These contributions, moreover, were rendered 
useless by that uncritical empiricism which controlled Greek 
Philology till the beginning of the present century, and Hebrew 
till a much more recertt period; just as this same empiricism has 
imparted to the interpretation of the N. T. the impress of uncer- 
tainty and arbitrariness. The philosophical method of handling 
philological subjects, — that method which seeks in national and 
individual peculiarities of thought the grounds of all phenomena 
of speech, anomalies even not excepted, — has effected a complete 
revolution in the study of Greek; and the application of the same 
method to the language of the N. T. can alone invest the Grammar 
of the N. T. with a scientific character, and elevate it to the dignity 
of a safe guide in interpretation. 


19 


[\ 
Tth ed. 


T 
6th ed. 


20 


Tth ed. 


th ed. 


21 


8 INTRODUCTION. 


The empiricism that pervaded Greek philology manifested itself in the 
department of Grammar mainly in the following particulars: a. The gram- 
matical structure of the language was apprehended merely in the rudest 
outline ; hence the relation of kindred forms, e.g. of the Aor. and Perf., of 
the Subjunctive and the Optative, of the twofold order of negatives (ob 
and pm), matters in which the genius of the Greek language is especially 
conspicuous, was left quite uncertain. b. In regard to those forms the 
distinctive power of which had been in general discerned, an unlimited 
interchange was asserted, according to which, one tense, one case, one par- 
ticle, was used for another ; and even direct opposites (e.g. Pret. and Fut., 
a6 and mpés, etc.) were supposed to be interchanged. c. A multitude of 
ellipses was devised, and in the most simple expression something was 
said to be understood. ‘This method of procedure, still exhibited in Fis- 
cher’s copious Animad. ad Welleri Grammat. Gr. (Lips. 1798 ff. 3 Spec. 
8vo.), was applied by expositors to the N. T, They thought themselves 
warranted in using still greater liberties than Greek philologists, because 
the Hebrew, after which the diction of the N. T. was modelled, is charac- 
terized by want of precision in forms, and want of regularity in syntax, 
(which; therefore, was not treated systematically but only under the head 
of enallages and solecisms).' The natural consequences of such views were 
abundantly apparent in the N. T. commentaries of the time; and Storr? 
had the honor of reducing to a sort of system this farrago of grammatical 
empiricism. Apart from all other evils resulting from such principles, 
they afforded unbounded license to the caprice of expositors, and made it 
easy for them to discover in the words of the sacred authors sentiments 
quite contradictory.® 


1 This empiricism was but occasionally and partially combated by enlightened 
scholars. ‘Thus numerous misapprehensions of expositors were pointed out, very intel- 
ligently on the whole, by the Wittenberg professors Balth. Stolberg, in his 'Tractat. de 
soloecism. et barbarism. graecae N. F. dictioni falso tributis. Vit. (1681.) 1685. 4to., and 
Franz Woken, in his dissertation entitled: Pietas critica in hypallagas bibl. Viteb. 
1718. 8vo., and particularly in his Enallagae e N. T. graeci textus praecipuis et plu- 
rimis locis exterminatae. Viteb. 1730. 8vo. Also J. Conr. Schwarz evinces highly 
respectable research and judgment in his Lib. de opinatis discipulor. Chr. soloecismis. 
Cob. 1730. 4to. Such protests, however, either obtained no attention, or were drowned 
by a contorte! artificiose ! 

2 How entirely different from his acute countryman Alb. Bengel, in his Gnomon, who, 
though he is often drawn into over-refined expositions, and attributes to the apostles 
his own dialectic conceptions, might have served for years as a model of careful and 
instructive exposition. While he turned attention to grammatical inquiries (cf. e.g. 
Acts iii. 19; xxvi. 2; 1 Cor. xii. 15; Matt. xviii. 17; Heb. vi. 4.), he devoted special 
diligence in lexical matters to synonyms. 

8 Sunt, says Tittmann (de scriptor. N. T. diligentia gramm. Lips. 1813. 4to., in 
Synonym. N. T. I. p. 206), qui grammaticarum legum observationem in N. T. inter- 
pretatione parum curent et, si scriptoris cujusdam verba grammatice i.e. ex legibus 
linguae explicata sententiam..... ab ipsorum opinione alienam prodant, nullam 
illarum legum rationem habeant, sed propria verborum vi neglecta scriptorem dixisse 


INTRODUCTION. 9 


The Greek philologists were the first to abandon this empiricism. 
Reitz’s pupil, Gottfr. Hermann, by his work De Emendanda Ratione 
Grammaticae Gr., gave the first powerful impulse to the ratigeal’ investi- 
gation of the noble Greek tongue. This method has now, after the lapse 
of more than fifty years, become so general, and produced such important 
results, and of late has allied itself so successfully to historical ? research, 
that Greek grammar has become transformed. The treatment of the sub- 
ject has been rational, because 

a. The primary import of all grammatical forms (the cases, tenses, 
moods), that is, the notion corresponding to every such form in the Greek 
mind, was distinctly settled ; and to this primary notion all actual uses of 
the same form were referred. Thus a multitude of ellipses disappeared, 
and enallage was reduced within its natural and narrow bounds. 

b. Even in the case of such deviations from the established laws of the 
language as had been adopted, either generally or by individual authors, — 
anacoluthon, confusio duarum structurarum, attractio, constructio ad sen- 
sum, brachylogia, etc., — pains were taken to show how they originated 
in the mind of the speaker or writer. 

The Greek language is thus exhibited as the expression of Greek thought 
—as aliving idiom. Every form and turn of expression is not merely 
stated as a matter of fact, but is traced back to the thinking mind, and an 
attempt is made to comprehend it in its origin within the soul. By such 
a method every unintelligible usage disappears of itself, such as the as- 
sumption that a writer wishing to express a past event has employed a fut. 
tense; that intending to say out of, he has said at; that wishing to call 
some one learned, he has called him more learned ; that meaning to sub- 
join a cause, he has written consequently ; that desirous of saying J saw a 
man, he has said J saw the man, ete. 

_ For a long time, however, Biblical philologists took no notice of all this 
progress in Greek grammar (and lexicography). They clung to old Viger 
and to Storr, and kept aloof from classical philology, under the impression 
(by no one distinctly avowed, to be sure, in recent times) that N. 'T. Greek, 
because Hebraistic, could not be subjected to the same philosophical 
method of inquiry. They would not perceive that Hebrew itself, like 
every other human language, admits and requires a philosophical treat- 
ment. Through the persevering efforts of Ewald, this truth is now uni- 
versally acknowledged. No one now denies that the ultimate explanation 
of Hebrew modes of expression must be sought for in Hebrew modes of 


contendant, quae talibus verbis nemo sana mente praeditus dicere unquam potuit. Hermann’s 
(ad Vig. 788) satirical remarks were just. 

1] should prefer this epithet to philosophical, because the latter may easily give rise 
to misunderstanding. All merely empirical philology is irrational; it regards lan- 
guage as something merely external, and not as the expression of thought. Cf. Tv%tt- 
mann, as above, S. 205 sq. , 

2 G. Bernhardy, wissenschaftl. Syntax der griech. Sprache. Berl. 1829. 8vo. 

2 


9 
Th ed 


6th ed. 


22 


10 
Tth ed. 


10 
6th ed. 


23 


10 INTRODUCTION. 


thought, and that a simple-minded people would be the last to repudiate 
the fundamental principles of human speech.’ Scholars are no longer con- 
tent to give@ preposition, for instance, the most diverse meanings accord- 
ing to the assumed requirements of a context superficially examined. But 
an endeavor is made to point out the transition from the primary import 
of every particle to every one of its secondary meanings; and without 
this, every alleged signification is regarded as an unscientific assumption. 
A student is no longer satisfied with the vague remark that to a Hebrew, 
non omnis — Which in reason can only mean not every one —is the same 
as omnis non, that is, nullus ; on the contrary, he refers to the true prin- 
ciple in every such case to be kept in view. 

N. T. Grammar, therefore, must strive after a rational exposition of the 
language of the N. 'T. if it will attain a scientific basis itself, or secure the 
same in turn to exegesis. All that has been already achieved in Greek 
philology must be carefully turned to account. It must, however, be 
remembered, that not every nice distinction propounded by the linguists is 
to be viewed as established (and even the text perhaps altered accordingly), 
but that philology is constantly progressive. Many views have already 
required to be considerably modified (those, for instance, relating to the 
use of ef with the subjunctive) ; others are still matters of disputation even 
among the best scholars (for instance, certain uses of ay). 

Since 1824, N. T. Grammar in particular has received valuable contri- 
butions from Fritzsche, in his Dissertatt. in 2 Epist. ad Cor. (Lips. 1824.), 
in his Commentaries on Matthew and Mark, in his Conject. in N. T. Lips. 
1825. 2 Spee. 8vo., and especially in his Comment. on the Epistle to the 
Romans, Hal. 1836. 8vo. ‘To these must be added the Dissertations of 
Gieseler and Bornemann in Rosenmiiller’s Exeget. Repert. 2 B., as well 
as the latter’s Scholia in Lucae Evang. Lips. 1830. 8vo., and, in part, his 
edition of the Acts of the Apostles (Acta Apost. ad Cod. Cantabrig. fidem 
rec. et interpr. est. Grossenhain, 1848. 8vo. I.). Finally, many grammat- 
ical questions have been discussed in the controversial correspondence 
between Fritzsche and Tholuck.? 


1 Rational investigation must be founded on historical. The whole field of language 
must first be historically surveyed, before we can explain individual phenomena. A 
simple language supposes simplicity of thought; and the explanation of forms and 
expressions is more easy in Hebrew, than in languages of less simplicity. The rational 
investigation of Hebrew implies tracing out all transitions from one signification of a 
word to another, all constructions and turns of expression, as they occurred in the 
Hebrew mind; since language is merely the image of thought (as thinking is, according 
to the Hebrew view itself, unuttered speech). To attempt to delineate @ priori the 
laws of language is absurd. It is readily conceded that the rational method of investi- 
gation may be now and then misapplied, as even the Greek philologists have not 
escaped over-refinements. Adherence, however, to empirical stupidity from the appre 
hension of such danger is disgraceful. 

2 Fritzsche, Ueber die Verdienste D. Tholuck’s um die Schrifterklarung. Halle. 1831. 
8vo. Tholuck, Beitrige zur Spracherklarung des N. T. Halle. 1832. 8vo. Sritzsche, 


INTRODUCTION. i 


Philological investigation into the language of the N. T. has not re- 
mained wholly without influence’ on any of the numerous commentaries 
which have recently appeared, whether emanating from the critical, evan- 
gelical, or philosophical school of theology ; although but a few of them 
have treated philological points attentively and independently (as van 
Hengel, Liicke, Bleek, Meyer). An intelligent estimate of improved phil- 
ological principles in their application to the N. T., has been given by 
H. G. Hélemann, Comment. de interpretatione sacra cum profana feliciter 
conjungenda. Lips. 1832. 8vo. 

N. T. Grammar has recently found its way from Germany to England 
and North America; partly in a translation of the fourth edition of the 
present book (New York and London, 1840), and partly in a separate 
(original ?) work, entitled, A Greek Grammar to the N. T., etc., by the 
Rey. William Trollope, M.A. London, 1842. 8vo. An earlier work on 
this subject, entitled, A Grammar of the N. T. Dialect, by Moses Stuart. 
Andover. 1841. 8vo., I have not yet seen. Moreover, the special gram- 
matical characteristics of individual writers have begun to attract attention 
(yet see above, p. 4): Gl. Ph. Ch. Kaiser, Diss. de Speciali Joa. Ap. 
Grammatica Culpa Negligentiae liberanda. Erlang. 1842. I. 4to.; also 
De Speciali Petri Ap. Grammatica Culpa Negligentiae liberanda. Erlang. 
1848. 4to. 

[In Germany, too, works upon N. T. Grammar have since been issued by 
Alex. Buttmann (Grammatik des N. T. Sprachgebrauchs. Im Anschlusse 
an Ph. Buttmann’s griech. Grammatik. Ber]. 1859. 8vo.) and S. Ch. Schir- 
litz (Grundziige der N. T. Griicitiit nach den besten Quellen fiir Studi- 
rende der Theol. u. Philol. Giessen. 1861. 8vo.). ] 


Praliminarien zur Abbitte und Ehrenerklirung, die ich gern dem D. Tholuck gewihren 
mochte. Halle. 1832. 8vo. Tholuck, Noch ein ernstes Wort an D. Fritzsche. Halle. 
1832. 8vo. Tholuck laid more stress on philological investigation in his Commentary 
on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hamb. 1836, 1840, 1850. 8vo. The anonymous author 
of Beitrige zur Erklirung des Br. an die Hebr. Leipz. 1840. 8vo., passes a severe 
judgment rather on the hermeneutical than the grammatical merits of Tholuck. 

1 Even on the commentaries of the excellent BCrusius, whose weakest side is un- 
doubtedly the philological. 


Tth ed 


12 


Tth ed. 


11 


6th ed, 


25 


Atego yal pd ba by: 


ON THE CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION, ESPECIALLY 
IN ITS GRAMMATICAL ASPECTS. 


——9_—— 


§1, VARIOUS OPINIONS CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF THE 
Ne DTC TION, 


1. Tnoucn the character of the N.T. diction is pretty distinct 
and obvious, Biblical philologists long entertained erroneous, or 
at least imperfect and one-sided, views on the subject. For, dog- 
matic considerations, combined with ignorance of later Greek 
dialectology, rendered minds in other respects intelligent incapable 
of perceiving exegetical truth. 

From the beginning of the 17th century various distinguished 
scholars (Purists) repeatedly attempted to demonstrate that the 
style of the N.'T. reaches in every respect the standard of classical 
purity and elegance; while others (Hebraists) not only recognized 
its Hebrew coloring, but in part at least grossly exaggerated it. 
Towards the end of the 17th century the opinion of the Hebraists 
obtained the ascendancy; though it did not altogether suppress 
that of the Purists, which found very learned defenders. About 
the middle of the 18th century, however, the Purist party became 
extinct, and the principles of the Hebraists, slightly modified in 
some particulars, became universal. Not until very lately have 
scholars begun to perceive the one-sidedness of these principles, 
and to adopt the correct intermediate views which Beza and H. 
Stephanus had already in the main pointed out. 


The history of the various opinions which from time to time were 
advanced, often with great controversial bitterness, respecting the Greek 
style of the N. T., is briefly related in Mortis, Acroas. acad. sup. Hermeneut. 
N. T., ed. Eichstidt, Tom. i. p. 216 sqq.; in Meyer, Gesch. der Schrifter- 
kliir. ili. 842 ff. (cf. Eichstadt, Pr. sententiar. de dictione scriptor. N. T. 
brevis censura. Jen. 1845. 4to.) ; with several important inaccuracies, in 
Planck, Einleit. in d. theol. Wissensch. ii. 43 ff. (cf. Stange, theol. Symmikta, 


§ 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION. 18 


ii, 295 ff.). For the bibliography of the subject see Walch, biblioth. theol. 
iy. 276 sqq.' From these sources, with occasional corrections, we present 
the following remarks as sufficient for our purpose : 

Th. Beza, in his Digressio de dono linguarum et apostol. sermone (on 
Acts x. 46), in reply to Erasmus’s assertion Apostolorum sermo non solum 
impolitus et inconditus verum etiam imperfectus et perturbatus, aliquoties 
plane soloecissans, defended the simplicity and force of the N. T. diction ; 
and its Hebraisms in particular, which, as is well known, he was far from 
denying, he represented in a very advantageous light as ejusmodi, ut nullo 
alio idiomate tam feliciter exprimi possint, imo interdum ne exprimi quidem, 
— in fact as gemmae, quibus (apostoli) scripta sua exornarint. After him, 
H. Stephanus, in the preface to his edition of the N. T. of 1576, combated 
the views of those qui in his scriptis inculta omnia et horrida esse putant ; 
and labored to show, by specimens, what fine Greek turns of expression 
occur in the style of the N. T., and that even the admixture of Hebraisms 
imparts to it inimitable force and expressiveness. 

Though the beauties pointed out are rhetorical rather than linguistic, 
and the Hebraisms are overrated, yet the judgment of these two masters 
of Greek is not so one-sided as it is generally said to be, and on the whole 
comes nearer the truth than that of many later expositors. 

After Drusius and Glass had specified and explained Hebraisms in the 
N.T. without opposition, extravagant notions were first promulgated by 
Seb. Pfochen, in his Diatribe de linguae graecae N.'T. puritate (Amst. 
1629; ed. 2, 1633. 12mo.). Having in the preface stated the subject of 
his inquiry to be: an stylus N. T. sit vere graecus nec abaliorum Graecorum 
stylo alienior talisque, qui ab Homero, Demosthene aliisque Graecis intelligi 
potuisset §§$ 81-129, he endeavors to demonstrate by copious quotations, 
graecos autores profanos eisdem phrasibus et verbis loquutos esse, quibus 
scriptores N. T. ($ 29). This juvenile treatise (though in substance ap- 
proved by Erasmus Schmid, as afterwards appeared from his Opus posthu- 
mum, 1658) seems, with its strict Purism, to have produced at the time no 
great impression. 

The Hamburg rector Joach. Junge (1637, 1639) in reality, though indi- 
rectly, first gave rise to a controversy on the nature of the N. T. diction. 
His opponent, the Hamburg pastor Jac. Grosse (1640), though not endors- 
ing Junge’s real opinion respecting the Hellenism (not barbarism)? of the 


1See also Baumgarten, Polemik, iii. 176 ff. The opinions of the (apologetical) 
Fathers on the style of the N. T. is given summarily in J. Lami, de erudit. apostolor. 
p- 138sqq. They treat the subject less under a philological than a rhetorical point of 
view. ‘Theodoret, gr. affect. cur. s., triumphantly opposes the coAotkiopol aAtevtucol to 
the gvAAoyiopol arrixol, 

2 Junge himself thus states his true opinion, in a German memorial addressed to the 
Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs in 1637 [cf. Joach. Jungius Ueber die Originalsprache 
des N. T. yom Jahre 1637. Aufgefunden, zuerst herausgegeben und eingeleitet von 
Joh. Geffcken. Hamb. 1863. 8vo.|: I have distinctly said, and I still say, that the style 


18 
th ed. 
12 


al 


6th ed, 


26 


27 


14 
Tth ed, 


13 


6th ed. 


28 


14 § 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION. 


N.T. style, admitted its harmlessness.| Dan. Wulfer, however, came 
forward the same year with Innocentia Hellenistarum vindicata (see 1, etc.), 
in which he asserted that Grosse’s reasoning was neither clear nor con- 
vincing.” Grosse had now to contend against Wulfer, whose misunder- 
standings he exposed, and also against Joh. Musaeus, the theologian of 
Jena (1641-42), who had charged him with vacillation and contradiction, 
but had in view rather his doctrinal opinions (respecting verbal inspiration) ; 
so that Grosse published, in all, five short dissertations (1641-42), vindi- 
cating, not indeed the Grecian elegance, but the purity and dignity of the 
language of the N. T. 

Without mingling in these controversies, which descended into odious 
personalities and were nearly fruitless to science, Dan. Heinsius (1643) 
asserted the Hellenism of the N. 'T. diction; and Thom. Gataker (de novi 
instrum. stylo dissert. 1648) wrote expressly against the Purism of Pfochen, 
with learning, but not without exaggeration. Joh. Vorst now published 
(1658, 1665) an elaborate and perspicuous list of the Hebraisms of the 
N. T. which Hor. Vitringa shortly afterwards animadverted upon as highly 
partial.’ 

J. H. Bécler (1641) and J. Olearius (1668)* adopted intermediate views, 
carefully discriminating between the Greek and the Hebrew elements in 
the style of the N.'T., and J. Leusden agreed with them in the main, 
although he is inferior to Olearius in discretion. 


of the N. T. is not classical Greek...... The question an N. T. scateat barbarismis, 
is so outrageous, that no Christian man ever entertained it before;..... I never could 
be brought to admit that there are barbarous expressions in the N. T., because. the 
Greeks themselves regard a barbarism as a vitium. 

1 His two leading positions are thus expressed: quod quamvis evangelistae et apos- 
toli in N. T. non adeo ornato et nitido, tumido et affectato (!) dicendi genere usi sint 
Serf ¥ impium tamen, imo blasphemum sit, si quis inde §. literarum studiosus graecum 
stylum..... sugillare, vilipendere et juventuti suspectum facere ipsique vitia et notam 
soloecismorum et barbarismorum attricare contendat..... Quod nec patres, qui soloe- 
cismorum et barbarismorum meminerunt et apostolos idiotas fuisse scripserunt, nec illi 
autores, qui stylum N. T. hellenisticum esse statuerunt, nec isti, qui in N.'T. Ebrais- 
mos et Chaldaismos esse observarunt, stylum §. apostolorum contemserint, sugillarint 
eumq. impuritatis alicujus accusarint cet. 

2 Grosse’s dissertation was specially directed against a possible inference from the 
proposition that the N. T. is not written in so good Greek as that employed by native 
Greek authors ; and, essentially, refers to adversaries that (at least in Hamburg) had 
then no existence. Moreover his whole argument is rather of a negative kind, as appears 
for example from the résumé (p. 40 of Grosse’s Trias) : etiamsi graecus stylus apostolor. 
non sit tam ornatus et affectatus, ut fuit ille qui fuit florente Graecia, non atticus ut 
Athenis, non doricus ut Corinthi, non ionicus ut Ephesi, non aeolicus ut Troade, fuit 
tamen vere graecus ab omni soloecismorum et barbarismorum labe immunis. 

8 Vorst in the preface utters his conviction : sacros codices N. T. talibus et vocabulis 
et phrasibus, quae hebraeam linguam sapiant, scatere plane. Cf. further, his Cogitata 
de stylo N. T., prefixed to Fischer’s edition of the work de Hebraismis. 

4 J. Cocceji stricturae in Pfochen. diatrib. were first printed solely for private distri- 
bution, and afterwards published in Rhenferd’s collection. 


§ 1, OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION. 15 


It now came to be very generally admitted that Hebraisms constitute a 
prominent element in N. T. diction, and give it a coloring, not indeed 
barbarous, but widely removed from classic purity (see also Werenfels, 
Opuse. i. p. 311 sqq.). The same view was advanced by Mos. Solanus, 
in a tardy but very sensible pamphlet against Pfochen. Even J. Heinr. 
Michaelis (1707) and Ant. Blackwall (1727) did not presume to deny the 
existence of Hebraisms, but tried to prove that the style of the N.T. 
writers, notwithstanding the Hebraisms, has all the properties of an elegant 
style, and in this respect is not inferior to the purity of the classics. The 
last-named scholar begins his work, which abounds in excellent remarks, 
thus: tantum abest, ut hebraismos in N. T. reperiri infitiemur, ut eorum 
potius insignem, qua hic diviftus abundat liber, copiam ad commoditatem 
ejus et elegantiam majorem afferre accessionem arbitremur. As little effect, 
however, had these scholars on the now established opinion as the erudite 
Ch. Siegm. Georgi, who, in his Vindiciae N. T. ab Ebraismis (1732), re- 
turned to the strongest Purism ; and in a new work, Hierocriticus sacer 
(1735), defended his assertions. He was followed, but with no greater 
success, by J. Conr. Schwarz, whose Commentarii crit. et philol. linguae 
gr. N. T. Lips. 1736. 4to., chiefly aimed at demonstrating the Greek purity 
even of expressions taken for Hebraisms.? To these must be added, as 
the last who opposed the misuse of Hebraisms, El]. Palairet (observatt. 
philol. crit. in.N. T. L. B. 1752. 8vo.),* and H. W. van Marle (florileg. 
observ. in epp. apost. L. B. 1758. 8vo.). Through the influence of the 
school of Ernesti, the more correct estimate of the language of the N. T. 
was generally diffused over Germany.* Cf. Ernesti’s Institut. Interpret. 
i. 2. cap. 3. 


1 Hemsterhuis ad Lucian. dial. mar. 4,3: eorum, qui orationem N. T. graecam esse 
castigatissimam contendunt, opinio perquam mihi semper ridicula fuit visa. Also, Bith. 
Stolberg, de soloecismis et barbarismis N.T. Viteb. 1681. 4to. and 1685. 4to., wished 
merely to vindicate the N. T. diction from blemishes unjustly ascribed to it; but, in 
fact, attempted to explain away many real Hebraisms. 

2 In the anticipation of certain victory he says in p. 8 of his preface: olim hebraismi, 
syrismi, chaldaismi, rabinismi (sic !), latinismi cet. celebrabantur nomina, ut vel scrip- 
tores sacri suam graecae dictionis ignorantiam prodere aut in graeco sermone tot lin- 
guarum notitiam ostentasse viderentur vel saltem interpretes illorum literatissimi et 
singularum locutionum perspicacissimi judicarentur. Sed conata haec ineptiarum et 
vanitalis ita sunt etiam a nobis convicta, ut si qui cet. A satire on the Purists will be 
found in Somnium in quo praeter cetera genius sec. vapulat. Alteburg. 1761, p. 97 sq. 

8 Supplements by Pal. himself may be seen in the Biblioth. Brem. nova Cl. 3 and 4. 
On the whole, Pal. produces passages almost exclusively in defence of such significa- 
tions and phrases, as no judicious person would take to be Hebraisms. 

* Ernesti’s view of the N. T. diction (diss. de difficult. interpret. grammat. N. T. § 12) 
may be recalled here: genus orationis in libris N. T. esse e pure graecis et ebraicam 
maxime consuetudinem referentibus verbis formulisque dicendi mixtum et temperatum, 
id quidem adeo evidens est iis, qui satis graece sciunt, ut plane misericordia digni sint, qui 
omnia bene graeca esse contendant. 


18; 
ith ed. 
14 
6th ed. 


29 
16 


Tth ed. 


15 


6th ed. 


16 § 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION. 


Most of the above-mentioned old dissertations (besides others), written 
in the Purist controversy, are collected in J. Rhenferd’s Dissertatt. philolog. 
theolog. de Stylo N.'T. syntagma, Leov. 1702. 4to., and in (what may be 
considered as a supplement to Rhenferd’s collection) Taco Hajo van den 
Honert, Syntagma dissertatt. de stylo N. T. graeco. Amst. 1703. 4to.l 

Let us endeavor briefly to characterize the efforts of those who attrib- 
uted classical purity to the N. T. diction.? 

Their great object was to collect from native Greek authors passages in 
which those very same words and phrases occur which are found in the 
N.'T., and are there explained as Hebraisms. Now, apart from the cir- 
cumstance that what is strictly speaking the body of the language was not 
in general distinguished from the rhetorical element, the Purists entirely 
overlooked the following considerations : 

a. That numerous expressions and phrases (particularly such as are 
figurative), owing to their simplicity and naturalness, are common to all, 
or at least to many languages, and cannot with propriety be called either 
Grecisms or Hebraisms.’ 

b. That a distinction is to be made between the diction of prose and 
that of poetry, and also between figurative expressions employed very 
rarely and by individual authors to give composition a peculiar elevation 
(as lumina orationis), and those which have become the common property 
of the language; and that, if in plain prose like that of the N. T. expres- 
sions used by Pindar, Auschylus, Euripides,* ete. occur, or such expres- 
sions, as well as rare Greek figurative phrases, recur as ordinary phraseol- 
ogy, this by no means proves the classical purity of the N. T. 

ce. That when an expression is found alike in Hebrew and in Greek, the 
training and history of the writers of the N. T. render it in general more 


1 The dissertations of Wulfer, Grosse, and Musaeus, though of trifling importance 
compared to their size, are missed with regret from this collection, and more of Junge’s 
than the sententiae doct. vir. de stylo N. T. should have been admitted. Besides, ef. 
Blessig, praesidia interpret. N.'T. ex auctorib. graec. Argent. 1778. 4to., and Mittenzwey, 
locorum quorundam e Hutchinsoni ad Xenoph. Cyrop. notis, quib. purum et elegans 
N. T. dicendi genus defenditur, refutatio. Coburg. 1763. 4to. An essay by G. C. Drau- 
dius, de stylo N. T., in the Primitt. Alsfeld., Niirnb. 1736. 8vo., I have not seen; (see 
Neubauer, Nachr. von jetzt lebenden Theol. i. 253 ff.). 

2 Mittenzwey made some remarks on this in his Essay, already en toveee 

3 Simplicity and graphic expression are common to Hebrew and Hebrew-Greek with 
the diction of Homer ; and particular phrases having these characteristics could with as 
little propriety be called Hebraisms in the latter as Grecisms in the former. In general, 
languages have points of contact, especially in popular speech, which is universally sim- 
ple and graphic ; while cultivated diction, as it is coined by the learned, is more isolated. 
Hence in Latin, for instance, most of what are called Germanisms are to be found in 
the style of comedies, epistles, etc. 

* See, on the other hand, Krebs, observ. praef. p. 3. Leusden, de dialectt. p. 37, says, 
with great absurdity : nos non fugit, carmina istorum hominum (tragicor.) innumeris 
hebraismis esse contaminata, Accordingly Fischer, ad Leusden, p. 114, finds Hebra- 
isms in the poems of Homer. . 


§ 1. OPINIONS ON THE N.T. DICTION. 17 


probable that such expression is copied immediately from the Hebrew, 
than that it is borrowed from the choicer literary language of Greece. 
Not to mention, 

d. That those uncritical collectors huddled together many passages out 
of Greek authors where, a. the same word indeed occurs, but in a different 
signification ; or, 6. expressions are found only similar, not identical. 
Further, 

e. That they unhesitatingly used even the Byzantine writers, into 
whose language, through the influence of the church, many elements of the 
Hebraizing N. T. phraseology may have been transferred (as in particular 
instances can be proved to be extremely probable; cf. Niebuhr, Index to 
Agath. under {ywoteSar) ; and, at all events, these Byzantine authors are 
not standards of classic Greek purity. Finally, 

f. ‘That they passed over, and were forced to pass over, many expres- 
sions in silence, because they are undeniable Hebraisms.' 

Thus the evidence produced in favor of Purism was partly defective 
and partly irrelevant. Besides, most of the Purists restricted themselves 
mainly to the lexical side of the question; Georgi alone discussed the 
grammatical with a fulness sustained by stores of erudition. 

In proof of the preceding statements, we subjoin several striking exam- 
ples (cf. also Mori acroas. 1. c. p. 222 sqq.) : And as respects 

a. Matt. v. 6, rewavres kal dupavres tiv dixavoovvyv. Examples are pro- 
duced from Xenophon, Aéschines, Lucian, Artemidorus, to prove that 
dwyv, in this (figurative) sense, is pure Greek. But it is so used in Latin 
also, and in nearly all languages; it cannot, therefore, be regarded as a 
Grecism any more than a Hebraism. The same holds of éoJiew (xateo Ii- 
ev) in the figurative sense of consume, waste. ‘This cannot be proved from 
Iliad 23, 182 to be a Grecism, nor from Deut. xxxii. 22 ete. to be a He- 
braism; but it is common to all languages. In the same way we might 
dispense with parallels to yevea generation i.e. the individuals of a partic- 
ular generation (Georgi, Vind. p. 39), to yelp power, to 6 Kipos Tis oikias, 
and the like. And it is really ridiculous when Matt. x. 27 xnpvgare ért 
tov Swpatwv is authenticated by ZEsop. 139, 1, gpidos eri revos 
Spatos éotws. Pfochen’s dissertation contains a great number of such 
idle and preposterous remarks. 

b. That xomdaoJa signifies mort is proved from the Iliad 11, 241 
(Georgi, vind. p. 122 sqq.) Kkousnoaro yddxeov vrvov, and Soph. Electr. 
510; that oréppa is used also by the Greeks for proles is proved chiefly 
from the poets, as Eurip. Iph. Aul. 524; Iph. Taur. 987; Hec. 254, and 
Soph. Electr. 1508 (Georgi, vind. p. 87 sqq.) ; that rousaivew means regere, 
from Anacr. 57, 8; that idetvy and Jewpety Jadvarov are good Greek, from 
Soph. Elect. 205 (Schwarz, Comm. p. 410), or from dépxeoIar xrvmor, 


1 This applies also to J. E. Ostermann, whose Positiones philologicae graccum N, T. 
contextum concernentes have been reprinted in Crenii exercitatt. fasc. ii. p. 485 sqq. 
3 


30 


17 
ith ed. 


16 
bth ed 


31 


18 
Tth ed. 


6th ed. 


32 


18 §1. OPINIONS ON THE N.T. DICTION. 


oxorov, in tragedians. For qorjpuv wivew in a figurative sense (Matt. 
xx. 22), Schwarz quotes Aischyl. Agam. 1397. That airrew signifies 
trritum esse, the established meaning in Hebrew, the same writer proves 
by Plato’s figurative expression, doxe? 7dovn wou wemrwxévar KaSamepel 7A1- 
yetoa i706 tov viv 6) Adywr, Phileb. p. 22. e. 

c. The phrase ywooKew dvdpa, though not unknown in Greek (Jacobs, 
ad Philostr. imagg. p. 583), may be derived with assurance directly from 
the common Hebrew phrase w*x >>, and regarded in our authors as a 
Hebraism. In like manner owAdyyva compassion, Enpd land as opposed 
to water (Fischer ad Leusden dialectt. 31), yetAos in the sense of shore, 
oropa. for edge of a sword (cf., however, Boissonade, Nic. p. 282), raxdvew 
to be stupid, foolish, kipuos Kupiwv, eisépyerIau eis Tov Koopov are primarily, 
no doubt, copied from the Hebrew, and are not to be proved to be pure 
Greek by parallels from Herodot., A.lian, Xenophon, Diodor. Sic., Philos- 
tratus, and others. 

d. a. That év is used by Greek authors to express the casus instru- 
mentalis — which with certain limitations is true — Pfochen tries to prove 
by such quotations as: zAé€wy év tats vavot (Xenoph.), 7AIe..... év vy 
pedaivy (Hesiod)! That good Greek authors use pyua for res is said to be 
apparent from Platt. legg. 797 c. (rovrou fjyaros kai tod ddéyparos ovk evar 
fnpiav peilw), where fnua may be translated verdict, decision. Xopralew 
to fill, (of pergons), is proved to be pure Greek from Plat. rep. 2, 372, 
where it refers to swine! Znreitv Wvyyv Tivos is affirmed to be classical, 
from Eur. Io. 1112; Thue. 6, 27, etc., were Cyretv alone, occurs in the 
sense of instdiari, or rather seek for (in order to kill). That édetAnpa in 
good Greek signifies peccatum, Schwarz tries to prove by Plat. Cratyl. 
400 c., where, however, d¢eAoueva denotes as elsewhere debita. Equally 
inappropriate are most of the passages from which Georgi (Hierocrit. p. 36 
sq., 186 sq.) attempts to show that in the best Greek authors the preposi- 
tions «is and év are interchanged, as they are in the N. T. Cf. also Krebs, 
Obs. p. 14 sq. 

B. That cipioxew ydpw (eAeos) zapa tux is not a Hebraism, Georgi 
(Vind. p. 116) tries to demonstrate from a passage of Demosthenes con- 
taining the words ebpioxecOar tHv eipyvny, THY Swpeay, as if the Hebraism in 
question did not lie rather in the whole phrase (for there is nothing peculiar 
to Hebrew in using find for obtain), and as if nothing depended on the 
middle voice. Palairet quotes Aristoph. Acharn. xpatjp aiparos, and 
similar expressions, to justify the use of zorypiov for sors ; and Schwarz 
defends zizrew irritum esse by a reference to Plat. Euthyphr. 14d. od 
Xapai recetrar 6,71 dy eizos. Passages containing the words ovre péya 
ovUTe opuixpdov were quoted to show that the well-known Merismus azo 
pukpod é€ws peyadov is pure Greek (Georgi, Vind. p. 310 sqq.; Schwarz, 
Comment. p. 917; cf. Schafer, Julian. p. xxi.). In such Merismus itself, 
however, there is nothing Hebraistic, but only in the particular formula 


§ 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION. 19 


given above dm puxp. ews pey. Theophan. Cont. p. 615 Bekk. is the first 
writer in whom this form occurs. Kap7os Ts Kowrlas, édodvos, Georgi 
(Vind. p. 304) supports by passages in which xapzds alone is used to 
denote the fruit of the human body. Aristoph. Nub. zAéov zAéov, more 
and more, is not sufficient to prove that 8vo So, two and two, is a Grecism ; 

it would be necessary to produce examples where the repeated cardinal is 
employed for dva dvo, dva tpets, etc., § 37, 38. In the same way dcca 8 
axovoas «iseéunv is vainly quoted from Callimachus to prove that riJévar 

eis TA OTa is pure Greek, as the two phrases are essentially unlike each 
other. Yet such specimens might be multiplied without end. What 19 
Georgi, Vind. p. 25, produces from Arrian. Epictet. in defence of 6 ddeAdos Tth ed. 
alter, seems peculiarly ridiculous. 

e. Schwarz, p. 1245, asserts, on the usage of Nicetas, the pure Greek 
character of the phrase orypi€ew 7o mpdswrov and the word évwrilecOar; 
and Palairet proves that of 1 &)pa in the sense of continent, from Jo. 
Cinnam. hist. iv. p. 185. Pfochen still more oddly vindicates the use of 
kowos to signify tmmundus, from Lucian, Mort. Peregrin. c. 13, where 
Lucian derisively employs a Judeo-Christian expression. 

f. Of the numerous Hebraistic words and phrases which the Purists 
passed over in silence, it will suffice to mention: zpdéswrov Aap Pavew, capé 18 
Kal alsa, vids eipyvys, eépyerOar && dadiios twds, woveiv eAeos (xdpwv) pera Sth ed 
Twos, amoxpiver$ac without a preceding question, éfoporoyetcPar Ged (to 
praise God) and many others; see § 3. 

After Salmasius, whose work De Lingua Hellen. later scholars had 
quite forgotten, Sturz’s dissertation De Dialecto Alexandrina (Lips. 1784, 
Ato., and Ger. 1788-93, 4to.), 2d enlarged ed. Lips. 1809, 8vo., led the | 
way to a correct estimate of N. T. diction, particularly as respects its basis, 
the Greek. (For able observations on Sturz, see the Heidelb. Jahrb. 
1810. 18 Heft, S. 266 ff) On this subject, therefore, Keil (Lehrb. der 
Hermeneut. S. 11 f.), Bertholdt (Einleit. in d. Bib. 1 Th. S. 155 f.), 
Ki¢hhorn (EKinleit. ins N. T. 4 Bd. S. 96 ff), and Schott (Isagoge in N. T. 
p- 497 sqq.) have written more satisfactorily than many earlier critics, 
but without exhausting the subject, and without exhibiting the requisite 
scientific precision. In both these respects the younger Planck has sur- 
passed his predecessors ; and (avoiding a fundamental mistake into which 
Sturz fell) he was the first to unfold clearly, and on the whole correctly, 
the character of the N.T. diction, in his De vera natura atque indole 
_orationis graecae N. T. comment. Gott. 1810, 4to. (reprinted in Com- 
mentatt. theol. vy. Rosenmiiller, ]. 1. p. 112 sqq.). Cf. his Pr. Observatt. 
quaedam ad hist. verbi gr. N. T. ibid. 1821, 4to. (and in Commentatt. theol. 
v. Rosenmiiller, 1. 1. p. 193 sqq.). See also (de Wette) A. Lit. Z. 1816, 
No. xxix. S. 306. 


38 


20 


Tth ed. 


19 
6th ed. 


20 §2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. 


§2. BASIS *OF THE N. T. DICTION. 


In the age of Alexander the Great and his successors the Greek 


language underwent an internal change of a double nature. On 


the one hand, a literary prose language was formed, which was 
founded on the Attic dialect, yet differed from it by adopting a 
common Greek element, and even admitting numerous provin- 
cialisms (7% Kou? or éAdAnViKH SiddexTos). On the other hand, a 
popular spoken language arose, in which the previously distinct 
dialects spoken by the various Greek tribes were blended, with a 
predominance of the Macedonic variety.t This latter compound, 
varying in some respects in the various provinces of Asia and Africa 
subjected to the Macedonian rule, constitutes the special founda- 
tion of the diction of the N. 'T., as it does also of the Septuagint 
and Apocrypha. Its peculiarities, further modified by a dis- 
regard of nice distinctions, and by an effort after perspicuity and 
also after commodious forms of expression, — may be fitly ranged 
under two heads: Lexical and Grammatical. | 


The older dissertations on Greek Dialectology, so far as regards the 
Kown diaAextos in particular, are now nearly useless. The subject is well, 
though briefly, treated by Matthiae (ausfiihrl. Gramm. § 1-8) and still 
more thoroughly by Buttmann (ausfiihrl. griech. Sprachlehre, §. 1-8), 
and also, though not with complete accuracy, by Planck 1. c. p. 15-28. 
Cf. besides, Tittmann, Synon. I. p. 262 sq., and Bernhardy, S. 28 ff. 

The Jews in Egypt and Syria” —and to these we confine our remarks 
—learned Greek principally from oral intercourse with Greeks, and not 





from books.’ It is not surprising, then, that even in writing they retained, 


1 Sturz, de dial. maced. et alex. p. 26sqq. Yet the subject requires a new and 
thorough investigation ; decisions such as that in Z’hiersch de Pentat.'LXX. p. 74, can 
by no means settle the question. 

2 A precise distinction cannot be drawn between what belonged to the language of 
Alexandria, and what was peculiar to the variety of Greek used in Syria (and Pales- 
tine) ; and even if it could, it would be of little importance as respects the N. T. Fich- 
horn’s attempt (Einl. ins N. T. TV. 124 ff.) is a failure, and could not be otherwise, as 
it was conducted with little judgment. Evxapioreiv, used by Demosthenes even, and 
from the time of Polybius by many writers, he pronounces an addition to the Alexan- 
drian diction! evi¢ew hospitio excipere, which is found not only in Xenophon but even 
in Homer, is labelled as an Alexandrian word! To what extent Greek was spoken by 
the Jews of Syria (and Palestine) we need not here inquire ; on this point see Paulus, 
de Jud. Palaest. Jesu et apostolor. tempore non aram. dialecto sed graeca quoque 
locutis. Jen. 1803. II. 4; Mug, Einleitung, I. 31 ff. ; my Realworterb. II. 502. ; Schlei- 
ermacher, Hermeneutik, S. 61 f. 

8 That the style of the Greek-speaking Jews was affected by the perusal of the Sep- 
tuagint makes no essential difference here, where we have in view mainly the classic 


§ 2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. 21 


for the most part, the peculiarities of the popular spoken language. This 34 
was the case with the LXX., the writers of the N. T., and the authors of 
many (the Palestin.) Apocrypha. Only a few learned Jews, who prized 21 
and studied Grecian literature, such as Philo and Josephus,’ attained a Tth ed, 
style approximating to literary Greek. Though that popular variety of 
Greek is no longer perfectly known,’ yet, from a comparison of the Hel- 
lenistic language (Hebraisms excepted) with the later literary prose, it 
appears that, departing still more noticeably from classic elegance, it had 20 
adopted in greater abundance new and provincial words and forms, and Gth ed. 
begun to neglect more decidedly nice distinctions of construction and idiom, 

to violate grammatical proprieties (their origin and grounds being lost 
sight of), and to extend many corruptions already manifesting themselves 

in the literary diction. Its main characteristic, however, continued to be 
such an intermixing of the previously distinct dialects (Lobeck, Pathol. 

p. 9.), that each province retained its own local variety as the basis of the 
provincial style ;— the Alexandrian retaining a predominance of Atticisms 
and Doricisms. 

We shall now endeavor to portray more minutely the later elements, 
both lexical and grammatical — of which the former are the more obvious 
—of the Hellenistic Greek which took its rise from the dialect spoken in 
Egypt, particularly in Alexandria (dialectus Alexandrina).® In doing 


Greek element. Moreover, that no profound Greek scholarship can be ascribed even 
to the Apostle Paul (see, among others, Pfochen, p. 178) is now generally admitted. 
He undoubtedly possessed a greater mastery of Greek than such of the sacred writers 
as were natives of Palestine. ‘This, however, he might easily attain in Asia Minor, 
and by his considerable intercourse with native Greeks, some of whom were persons of 
learning and distinction. ster, in the Stud. und Krit. 1854. 2 (ob P. seine Sprache 
an der des Demosth. gebildet habe) brings together Demosthenic words and phrases, 
of nearly all of which it must be said that either Paul might have learned them from 
the spoken language of the educated, or that they are unlike the diction of the Attic 
orator. Copious command of Greck in the case of men who associated so much with 
Greeks does not suffice to prove them students of Greek literature. 

1 A comparison of portions of the earlier books of the Antiquities with the corres- 
ponding portions of the Septuagint, proves particularly that the style of Josephus is 
not to be put on a level with that of the Septuagint, or even of the N. T., and renders 
obvious the difference between a Jewish and a Greek narrative style. Cf. besides, 
Schletermacher, Herm. S. 63. 

2 Hence a “complete view of the language of common life, 
Herm. §. 59, would fain see, can never be given. 

8 On this (zp) rijs "AAckavdpéwy Siadéxrov) the grammarians Jrenacus (Pacatus) and 
Demetrius Ixion had written special works, which are now lost. See Sturz, dial. maced. 
et alex. p. 24, not. 4, cf. p.19sq. As extant specimens of this dialect, besides the well- 
known Rosetta inscription, are to be considered: Papyri graeci reg. Taurin. musei 
aegyptii ed. et illustr. a A. Peyron. Turin, 1827. 2 Vol. 4to., and the same author’s 
Illustrazione di due papiri graeco-egizi dell’ imper. museo di Vienna, in the Memorie 
dell’ academ. di Torino, Tom. 33, p. 151 sqq. of the histor. class ; Description of the 
Greek Papyri in the British Museum, Lond. 1839. 4to. Tom. 1; J. A. Letronne, Recueil 
des inscriptions grecques et latines de l’Egypte, ete. Paris, 1842 and 1848, 2 Tom. 4to. 


” which Schleiermacher, 


99 § 2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. 


this, we shall constantly avail ourselves of the researches of Sturz, Planck, 
85 Lobeck,! Boissonade, and others. For the passages they quote in proof 

(chiefly from the writers of the xowy, Polybius, Plutarch, Strabo, A®lian, 

Artemidorus, Appian, Heliodorus, Sext. Empiricus, Arrian, etc.)? the 

reader must be referred to the works of these critics themselves. What 

appears to have belonged exclusively to the popular spoken language, and 
22 is not to be found in any profane Greek author, we shall mark with an 
Tthel. asterisk. . 


91 1. Lexican Prcurianiries: a. The later dialect comprised words 
6th ed. and forms from all the Greek dialects, without distinction ; as, for instance, 
from the Attic: tadros (Lob. 809), 6 oxdros, devds (Herm. Praef. ad Soph. 
Ai. p.19), iddyn, ddAnPew (Lob. 151), zpvuva (Lob. 331), trews ; from the 
Doric: ridko (mew), kiBavos (Lob. 179), 1) Axds, rota (grass, instead of 
moin or 70a), PeuPpavas, which Zonaras quotes from 2 Tim. iv. 13, where 
however all our Codd. give peuBp., see Sturz, Zonarae glossae sacrae. 
Grimmae, 1820. 4to. P. II. p. 16; from the lonic: yoyyifm (Lob. 358), 
pjoow, mpnvys (yet already used in Aristot., see Lob. 431), Ba@uds (Lob. 
324), oxopmigew (Lob. 218), dponv (Bttm. I. 8. 84, cf. Fr. Rom. I. 78). 
Tonic and Doric is («itiooew Rey. vi. 14 var.; cf. Mtth. I. 69) dvw in an 
intransitive sense (Ileb. xii. 15, cf. Babr. 64.). Grammarians note as 
Macedonic, rapenBorn camp (Lob. 377, cf. Schwarz, Soloec. ap. 66), pyuy 
street ; as of Oyrenaie origin, Bovvds hill (Lob. 355 sqq.) ; as Syracusan, 
the imperative cizdv (Fritzsche, ad Mr. p. 515). 
b. The later dialect attached new significations to words already existing 
in the ancient language: zapaxadeiv and épwrav* entreat, radevew chastise, 


1 Yet see even Olear. de stylo, p. 279 sqq. 

2 In studying the peculiarities of later Greek, the church Fathers and the books of 
Graeco-Roman Jaw have hitherto been turned to scarcely any account. To the latter 
frequent reference will be made in the course of this treatise. How far the N. T. diction, 
through the influence of the church, affected the later Byzantine Greek, is reserved for 
separate inquiry. The Pseudepigrapha of the O.'T. and the Apocrypha of the N. T., 
that is certain portions of them, are now available more completely, and in a better 
text; the latter through the labors of Tdf. The style of these clumsy compositions, 
though not by any means uniform, is on the whole so poor that the N. T. diction seems 
like classic Greek in comparison. Cf. besides, Tdf. de evangel. apocryph. origine et 
usu, in the Verhandelingen uitgeven door het Haagsche Genootschap, ete. 12 Thl. 
1851. 8vo. 

8 The Greek grammarians, particularly Thomas Mag. (the latest edition by Ritschl, 
Halle, 1832. 8vo.), specify as common Greek much that is not unknown even to standard 
Attic (see e.g. Oewédros, Th. M. p. 437, and epevy@uct, p. 363), and even fall sometimes 
into gross mistakes. Cf. Oudendorp, ad Thom. M. p. 903. Much that, after Alexander 
the Great, forced its way into the written language, undoubtedly was current before in 
the popular speech (as, perhaps, otpyvav, which first appears in the poets of the New 
Comedy). Besides, the N. T. writers frequently employ forms and words preferred by _ 
the Atticists, instead of those characterized as common Greek ; e.g. xpnordrns, Thom. 
M. p.921, % (not 6) AatAay, Thom. M. 864. 


§2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. | 93 


ebxapiorety thank (Lob. 18), dévaxAwew, dvarinrew, dvaxeicOa., to recline at 
table (Lob. 216), daroxpiOjvae answer (Lob. 108), aytiv€yew oppose, dzo- 
racoecOau valere jubere, renuntiare (Lob. 23 sq.), ovyxpivew compare (Lob. 
278), daipwv, daysdviov, evil spirit, Evdrov (living) tree (Passow, sub verb.), 
divarroveio bax aegre ferre*, oréyew hold off, endure, ocBakecOa revere (equiy- 
alent to c¢BecOa, Fr. Rom. I. 74), cvviornus prove, establish (Fr. Rom. I. 
159), xpyuarilew be called, (Vr. Rom. Il. 9), p@avev come, arrive (Fr. 
Rom. II. 356 sq.), xepadis volume (roll) of a book (Bleek on Heb. x. 7), 
evoxjuwv a respectable, prominent, man (Lob. 833), Yopifew and xopralew 
(fodder) feed, nourish*,? dWdviov wages (Sturz, 187), dWdpuov fish, épevye- 
a6 elogui (Lob. 63 sq.), érurrehAew write a letter (érurtody), meprrrac Oat 
negotiis distrahi (Lob. 415), rrGpa corpse (Lob. 375), yevvypara fruges 
(Lob. 286), cyody school (Lob. 401), Ovpeds large (door-shaped) shield 
(Lob. 366), dda house-top, AoBH offering (Babr. 23, 5), fvun street 
(Lob. 404 sq.), mappyocia asswrance, confidence, dada speech (dialect), 
Aapras lamp, xataorody long robe*, vvvi now (in Attic, this instant) Fr. 
Rom. I. 182, crduvos, which in the classics denotes a vessel for holding 
liquids, was used to signify also a vessel for dry articles, Babr. 108, 18. 

A special peculiarity was to give neuter verbs the transitive or causative 
signification ;* as, paPyreve (Matt. xxviii. 19), @prapBevew (2 Cor. ii. 14? 
yet see Mey.), in the Sept. even fjv, BaowWevew, and many others; cf. 
especially, Psalm xli.3; cxviii. 50; cxxxviii. 7, etc., cf. § 32,1. see Lydius 
de re mil. 6.3, esp. Lob. Soph. Ai. p. 382 sqq. Lastly, in the case of 
péeOvoos, usage at least so far changed that the word, previously confined 
to females, was applied to both sexes (Lob. 151 sq.; Schiifer, ind. ad Asop. 
p- 144). 

ce. Words and forms which in classical Greek were seldom used, or only 
_ by poets and in the more elevated kinds of style, became ordinary and 
favorite, and were employed even in common prose; such as, avfevrety to 
lord it (Lob. 120), pecovixriov (Thom. M. 609; Lob. 53), dddAqros (2), 
Geoorvyns (Pollux 1, 21), éoOnows (Th. M. 370), GAexrwp (dAextpvev, Lob. 
229), Bpéxew trrigare (Lob. 291), eof (for éofiw) Bttm, II. 185. To 


1 That is, as its inherent signification ; for, from the context, the word means this in 
the Iliad, 8, 166, as also in Dinarch. ady. Demosthen. § 30, p. 155, Bekk., a passage 
quoted by recent scholars. Even the Byzantines for precision add kaxdés to Saluwr, 
Agath. 114, 4. 

2 This extended meaning might be considered also as a Hebraism; wWwyulew was 
commonly used as quite equivalent to DIDNT (cf. Grimm on Wisd. xvi. 20), like xoprd- 
¢ew, which in Greek authors is not applied to persons. (In opposition to Pfochen, see 
Solanus in Ihenferd, p. 297.) It is uncertain whether Sexadvo for 5é5exa belongs to the 
later popular Greek, or was first formed by the LXX. The first seems to me the more 
probable, for to mw pnw 5H5era corresponds more exactly than dexadvo. 

8 Transitive verbs are more convenient in construction than intransitive. Later 
Greek even employed the construction mpostdrtew tid (Acta apocr. p. 172) ; just as in 
German etwas widersprechen is the more familiar phrase ; in the language of trade we 
hear, das Riibol ist gefragt. 


36 


23 
Tth od, 


22 


6th ed, 


37 


24 
Tth ed, 


23 
6th ed. 


24 §2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. 


the same head Eichhorn (Hinl. ins N. T. [V. 127) refers the phrase 0éo6ax 
Tl €v TH Kapodia, employed it is said in solemn style by the poets particularly 
the tragedians, since it occurs in the N.'T’. in the plainest prose. But the 
Homeric phrase év pect OéoGax is only similar, not identical. The ex- 
pression ovvrnpety év TH Kapdia, cited by the same author as a solemn 
formula, is used also in the N.T. as emphatic. Kopactov, on the other 
hand, is to be regarded as an example of a word which, dropping its sec- 
ondary import, was adopted into the literary style from the colloquial 
(Lob. 74), cf. Germ, mddel. 

d. Many words which had long been in use received another form or 
pronunciation, which generally supplanted its predecessor; such as, perot- 
Keola (perotkia), ixeota (ixereta, Lob. 504), dvadena (avabnpa, Schif. Plutarch. 
V. p. 11), dvaorepa, yevéota (yeveOAva, Lob. 104), yAwoodxopoy (yAwooo- 
Kopetov, Lob. 98 sq.), exmadae (rdAa, Lob. 45 sq.), éxOés (xOés), eSamwa 
(eéarrivyns), airnua (airnots), Wetopa (Weddos, Sallier ad Th. M. 927), daav- 
Thos (ardvrnua), nynots (ayepovia), Avxvia (Avxviov, Lob. 314), vikos (vixy, 
Lob. 647), oixodopy (oikoddpyots, Lob. 490), dvedurpds, Lob. 512 (dvedos, 
oveldiopia, Her. 2, 133), drracia (dys), % dépxwpocia (ra dpxwpdow), proba- 
modocia (purbodocta), cvykupia (ovykipyots), adroctacia (amdoracts, Lob. 
528), vovdecia (vovérnows, Lob. 512), dmapricpds (dmapticts), peAtootos 
(peXioceos), motamds (rodamds, Lob. 56), Bacittcoa (Bacirea),' poryadrés 
(noryas Lob. 452), povopbadpos (ErepdpOadpos, Lob. 186), xappvtew (Kara- 
pvew, Sturz, p. 123), dos (oytos, Lob. 52), 6 rAyotov (6 wéAas), tposyAvTos 
(eryAvs, Valcken. ad Ammon. p. 32), dvovwteba (dvoav) to be puffed up 
(trop. Babr. 114), areviGew since Polybius for arevieo@ar (Passow), éxxvvew 
(éxyéew, Lob. 726), orjxw (from éoryxa stand, Bttm. II. 36), dpyds, 7, ov 
(as an adject. of three terminations, Lob. 105), weds, voocol, vorotd 
(veoroot, veooord, Thom. M. 626; Lob. 206 f.), rerdoprae (7éropot, Lob. 581), 
aredrilew (droywookew), eurvilew (apurviger, Lob. 224), pavriev (patvew), 
dexarodv (dexarevew), dporpiav (dpodv, Lob. 254 sq.), BiBrapidiov™ (BrBXéd.ov, 
BiBrAwdpiov), Wuxtov (WIE), rapetov (Tapretov) Lob. 493, katarovrilew (kara- 
movrowv, Lob. 361), zapadpovia (zapadpoctvyn)*, mrvov (xréov, Lob. 321), 
Wibupiorys (for YOvpds) Thom. M. 927, azapuov (as most of the diminutives 
in -apuov, e.g. waiddpvov, dvéptov, Fr. Mr. p. 638). Purely Alexandrian 
(LXX.) are dkpdéBvoros and éxpoBvaria, Fr. Rom. I. 186; verbal forms 
in w pure, instead of in pu, e.g. duvtdw for duvyys, Thom. M. 648. Cf. also 


- £vpdw for Evpéw, Thom. M. 642; Phot. Lex. 813 (Lob. 205, and ad Soph. 


Aiac. p. 181), pres. Bapéw (Bapivw) Thom. M. p. 142, capoty for caipew 
Lob. 83, xoAav (xoAotcbar), Sov etvas for e€etvar (Foertsch, de locis Lysiae, 
p- 60sq.). Active forms were adopted instead of the middle or deponent 
verbs usual in the earlier language ; as, dpvdooew Act. iv. 25, from Ps. ii. 
dyaddav Luke i. 47, ebaryyeAiew Lob. 269. Compound verbs, in which 


1 Similar to which is iépioca from fepeds, which is found in Papyr. Taurin.9,14. Cf 
Sturz, p. 178. 


en ee ae 


§2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. 3 95 


_the preposition did not add to the meaning, were preferred to the less im- 
posing and less sonorous simple forms." Further, as even many compound 
verbs did not seem expressive enough, numerous double compounds made 
their appearance (Siebelis, Pr. de verb. compos. quae quatuor partibus 
constant. Budiss. 1832. 4to.). For members of the human body, however, 
forms originally diminutive became sometimes the current forms in col- 
loquial speech; as, @riov, cf. Fischer, proluss. p. 10 sqq.; Lob. 211 sq., 
opriov? Lastly, many substantives received a different gender and in 
part a corresponding change of termination; see § 8 note, and § 9 note 2. 

e. Entirely new words and phrases*® were constructed, mainly by 
composition and for the most part to meet some sensible want; as, aAAo- 
Tpioericxoros*, avOpwraperxos (Lob. 621), dAdKAnpos, dyeveadoyyros™, aipa- 
Texxvoia®, dixatoxpicia, oitopérpiov, vuyOypepov (Sturz, 186), wAnpodopia 
(Theophan. 132), xaAozoreiv (Lob. 199 sqq.), aixwadrwri€ew and aiypadwreveww 
(for aixudAwrov reretv, Thom. M. p. 23; Lob. 442), peorreveww, yupvyrevew, 
dyalorouty (dyafoepyeiv) for dyafov rorety (Lob. 290), dyadXtaors, dpobecia, 
avritutpov*, éxpuxrnpilew*, adextropodwvia (Lob. 229), dmoxehadilew (Lob. 
341), dvtamoxpiverbar (/Esop. 272 de Fur.), efovdevetv (Lob. 182 ; Schiif. 
ind. Adsop. p. 135), éxxaxetv* (the literary Greek knows only éyxaxety, see 
my Comment. ad Gal. p. 134, and Mey. on 2 Cor. iv. 1), eidoxety (Sturz, 
p- 168; Fr. Rom. I. 870 sq.), opouiew*, dyaboupyety, éyabwovvn, dvackop- 
milew (Lob. 228), orpyvuav (tpvdav, Lob. 381), éykparevopac* (Lob. 442), 
oikoderrorys, oikoderrorety (Lob. 373), AGoBodetv, tpospayrov (dor, Sturz, 
191), Aoyia, kpaBBatos (ckiurovs, Lob. 63; Sturz, 175 sq.), merotOnots 
(Lob. 295), otros (xydis, Lob. 28), papun (776n, Lob. 133 sq.), pais 
(Bedovn, Lob. 90), aypreAaos (Kdtwos, Moeris, p. 68), dyvorns*, ayrorys*, 
érevourns, extevos and éxrévea (Lob. 311), dzapaBaros (Lob. 313). 

It belongs alike to d. and e. to remark that the later Greek especially 
abounded : — in substantives in pa, e.g. kardAupa, dvratddopa, KaTopOwpa, 
pamicpa, yévvnpa, extpwpa (Lob. 209), Barrurpa*, vradpa, tepoovAnua™ (see 
Pasor, Gramm. N.T. pp. 671-574) ;— in substantives compounded with ovr, 
€.g. cuppabyrys, cvumodirns (Lob. 471) ;— in adjectives in wos, e.g. dpOpuds 


1 That, on the other hand, simple verbs were in later Greek preferred to the corres- 
ponding compound, 7df. (Stud. und Krit. 1842. 8. 505) tries to prove from the expres- 
sion Bovdny tiOéva, for which the carlier Greeks had used Bovahy mportieva. But 
these phrases may have differed in meaning, see Raphel on Acts xxvii. 12. With 
greater probability might be adduced here the verbs (mentioned under ec.) Seryuati ew 
and @earpi¢ew, for which in the written language we find only mapaderyuaricew and 
éxOearpicew; so also taptapoty for xataraptapody. In the same way the Prussian official 
style employs Fithrung for Auffiihrung. 

2It may be mentioned here also, that abbreviated forms of proper names, which 
probably were current earlier in popular speech, made their way into the written lan- 
guage ; as, *"Adetais, Emavia (for ‘Iomavia), ete. The derivatives of 5éxeoa: were but 
slightly altered ; as, ravdoxeds, tevodoxebs, for mavdoKeds, etc., Lob. 307. 

’ Many such words have been collected from the Fathers by Suicer in his sacrae 
observatt. (Tigur. 1665, 4to.) p. 311 sqq. 

4 


38 


25 
7th ed. 


6th ed, 


39 


7th ed. 


2b 
6th ed. 


26 §2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. 


(Sturz, p. 186), rpwivds, kabnuepwds, darpaxwos, Sepparwvos (Lob. 51 sq.) ;— 
in verbs in ow, tlw, alw, ¢.g. dvaxawwow, duvapow, apuTvdw, doALow, eLovdevdu*, 
aevow, dpOpilu*, detryparilu*, Oearpilw, puraxilw™, warilo, dxovrilw, weexilo 
(Lob. 841), aiperigw (Babr. f. 61; Boisson. anecd. II. 318), cwalo. To 
these may be added also the presents formed from preterites orjxw (see 
above), ypyyop® Lob. 118 sq. Cf. also such adverbs as ravrore (duatavros, 
ExaoTore), Tadibev (ek mradiov, Lob. 93), Kaas (Sturz, p. 74), mavorki 
(ravouia, mavoixnoia, Lob. 515), see Sturz, 187 sq.) “Eoydrws exew is a 
later phrase (for kakas, tovnpas éxev) Lob. 889 ; and kadozorely (see above) 
was used for the more ancient phrase KaAds zrovety. 

It cannot be denied that the preceding list contains many words formed, 
agreeably to the prevailing analogy of the time, by the Greek-speaking 
Jews, or even by the N. T. writers themselves (especially Paul, Luke, and 
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews; cf. Origen. orat. § 27); ef. 
particularly dpOpiZew (D»DWM), AoBorktv, aiparexyvata, oxAnpoxapdia, oxd- 
potpaxnr0s, ayaboepyetv, dpHorodeiv, dpHoropetv, pooyoroeiv, peyahwovvy, Ta- 
Trewoppocivy, TapaParys, TaTpiapyns, ayeveaddyynros, tromdduov (Sturz, 199), 
xpvaodaxtvAios. However, the circumstance that no traces of these words 
are to be found in the Greek writers still extant of the first centuries after 
Christ (but these have not yet been fully explored)* must not be regarded 
as altogether decisive. Many of the words in question may have been 
already current in the popular speech of the Greeks. But words denoting 
Jewish institutions, or heathenism as idolatry, originated of course among 
the Greek-speaking Jews themselves; such as, oxyvornyia, eidwAdOvror, 


_eldwAodarpeta. Lastly, many words assumed among the Jews a peculiar 


meaning resting on special Jewish modes of thought; as, émuotpépeo Oar, 
émiatpopy, absolutely used, to convert, conversion, mposndvtos, TtevTeKooTy 
Whitsuntide, xocpos (in a figurative sense), @vAakrypiov, éexvyapBpevew of 
the levirate marriage. In reference to Christian apostolic words and 
forms (such as Parricpa) see § 3 end, p. 35. 


2. GRAMMATICAL PECULIARITIES: These are confined mostly to in- 
flections of nouns and verbs, which were either unknown in the earlier 
language, or not used in certain words, or at léast foreign to the literary 
Attic: for in this respect also the intermixture of dialects previously 
distinct became manifest. Moreover, the use of the Dual became rare. 


1 Popular Greek naturally adopted single foreign words (appellatives), with slight 
alterations, from the languages in use in the different provinces along with the Greek. 
On this, however, we cannot dwell in an inquiry so general as the above. With regard 
to the Egyptian element in the Septuagint and elsewhere, see Sturz, dialect. Alex. 
p- 84. sqq. Also Latin and Persian words and expressions have been pointed out in the 
N. T.; ef. Olear. de stylo N. T. p. 366sq. 368 sqq.; Georgi, Hierocrit. I. p. 247 sqq. 
and the whole of II. (de latinismis N. T.). Cf. Dresig, de N. T. gr. latinismis merito 
et falso suspectis. Lips. 1726, 4to., and Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik, S. 62 f, 

2 Most of this description appear subsequently in the Byzantine authors, who abound 
in double compounds and lengthened forms of words. What had fallen into disuse 
was cagerly restored and revived. 


a a ett jes 


§ 8, HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. 27 


The later Greek has few syntactical peculiarities. Certain verbs, for 
instance, are construed with cases different from those they formerly used 
to govern (§ 31, 1. cf. Boissonade, anecd. III. 136,154); conjunctions which 

previously took only the Subjunct. or Optat. are used with the Indic.; the 
use of the Optat., particularly in the oratio obliqua, decreases sensibly ; 
the use of the future participle after verbs of going, sending, etc., recedes 
before that of the present (or the infinitive) ; Active verbs with éavrov 
‘begin to be substituted for Middle, when unemphatic. Also, in general, 
more forcible expressions lose their emphasis. On the other hand, ad- 
ditional expressiveness is aimed at even by grammatical forms, cf. peLorepos, 
iva instead of the Infinitive, etc. But the later varieties of inflection will 
most appropriately find place in § 4. 

Later popular Greek had, beyond doubt, different peculiarities in differ- 
ent provinces. Critics, accordingly, have professed to discover Cilicisms 
in the style of Paul (Hieron. ad Algasiam quaest. 10. Tom. IV. ed. Marti- 
anay, p. 204). The four examples, however, which this Father adduces 
are not conclusive (Michaelis, Einl. ins N.T. 1 Thi. §. 161) ; and as we 
know nothing respecting the provincialisms of Cilicia (see, however, Sturz, 
Dial. Alex. p. 62), it is better at present to dismiss the investigation alto- 
gether, than to rest it on empty conjectures. Cf. B. Stolberg, de Cilicismis 
a Paulo usurpatis, in his tr. de soloecismis N. T. p. 91 sqq. 


§ 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF THE N. T. DICTION. 


This popular variety of Greek, however, was not spoken and. 


written by the Jews without foreign admixture. They not only 
imparted to their Greek style the general complexion of their 

mother tongue, which consists in vividness and circumstantiality 
as well as uniformity of expression, but also introduced particular 
Jewish turns of expression. Yet both these peculiarities are more 
apparent in their translations directly from Hebrew, than in their 
original composition in Greek.! 

Lexical Hebraisms (and Aramaisms) are more numerous than 
grammatical; and consist partly in the extension of the significa- 
tion of words, partly in the imitation of entire phrases, and partly 
also in the analogous formation of new words to express corres- 
ponding Hebrew terms. Thus originated a Jewish-Greek, which 
native Greeks did not entirely understand,? and which they even 
sometimes turned into ridicule. 


i Herein lies an argument, which has received little attention, why the text of the 
N. T. is not to be regarded as a translation from the Aramaic, and that too, in a great 
measure, clumsily executed. 

2 Though the opinion of Z. de Dieu (pracfat. ad grammat. orient.) : facilius Euro- 


40 


27 
ith ed. 


26 
6th ed. 


41 


28 
Tth ed. 


27 
6th ed. 


42 


98 § 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. 


All the nations which after the death of Alexander continued under 
Graeco-Macedonian rule and which gradually adopted the Greek language 
of their conquerors even in common life, particularly the Syrians and 
Hebrews, spoke Greek less purely than native Greeks, and imparted to 
it more or less the impress of their mother tongue (Salmas. de lingua 
Hellen. p. 121, cf. Joseph. antt. 20,9)." As the Greek-speaking Jews are 
usually denominated Hellenists, this Oriental variety of Greek, known to 
us only in the writings of Jews, has not improperly obtained the name 
of the Hellenistic idiom; see Buttm. I. 8. 6.2 Accordingly, the diction 
of the LXX. and of the N. T. (of the Pseudepigrapha of the O. T. and 
the Apocrypha of the N. T.) has been especially called Hellenistic ; yet it 
was not Drusius (ad Act. vi. 6), but Scaliger (animad. in Euseb. p. 134), 
who first employed this term. 

The Hebraisms of the N. 'T. — for these only, and not the oriental cast 
of the periods and arrangement of words, were usually attended to— have 
been collected frequently and thoroughly; in particular by Vorst, Leusden 
(in his Philol. hebr., from which the dissertatio de dialectis N. T. sing. 
de ejus hebraismis was separately printed by J. I. Fischer, Lips. 1754, 


pacis foret Platonis Aristotelisque elegantiam imitari, quam Platoni Aristotelive N. T. 
nobis interpretari, is decidedly an exaggeration. Still, the circumstance mentioned 
above may in general explain the fact that learned Greek transcribers, or possessors of 
MSS. of the N. T., often took the liberty of making corrections in order to bring the 
diction nearer to Grecian elegance ; see /lug, Einl. ins N. T. I. S. 129. 

1 Tt is well known that Greek subsequently became Latinized, also, when the Romans 
began to write in that language. The Latin coloring, however, is not very marked 
before the Byzantine literature, even in Greek translations from Latin authors, such as 
that of Eutropius by Paeanius, of Cicero’s Cat. Maj. and Somn. Scip. by Theodorus 
(published by Gétz. Niirnb. 1801. 8vo.). This was partly owing to the much closer 
affinity between Greek and Latin than between Hebrew and Greek, and partly because 
these authors had made Greek a special study. 

2 This appellation ought to be resumed as a technical term, it isso thoroughly appro- 
priate. For éAAnuorhs in the N.T. (Acts vi. 1) denotes a Greek-speaking Jew; (for 
compilations respecting €AAnvi¢ew rather than éAAnuiorhs, see Wetstein II. p. 490; Lob. 
p- 879 sq.). The notion of Sa/mastus, that in the N. T. Hellenist means a Greek prose- 
lyte to Judaism, is a rash conclusion from Acts vi. 5, and Hichstddt (ad Mori acroas. 
herm. I. p. 227) should not have adopted it. Moreover, the controversy between Dn. 
Heinsius (exercit. de lingua hellenist. L. B. 1643y8vo.), and Salmasius (hellenistica 
L. B. 1643. 8vo.; funus linguae hellen. ib. 1643. j de ossilegium linguae hellen. ib. 
1643. 8vo.), on the appellation dialectus hellenistica, related not merely to the word Hel- 
lenistic, but still more to the term dialectus, for which Salmasius wished to substitute 
character or stylus idioticus (de Hellenist. p. 250), compare also Tvtiémann, Synonym. I. p. 
259sq. Yet the term dialect (d:dAextos tomy) might be allowable to denote, particu- 
larly in accordance with the very extensive meaning of the verb d:aréyeo@ar (see, e.g. 
Strabo 8, 514), that variety of Greek spoken by Hellenistic Jews. Other dissertations 
on the designation dialect. hellenist. see in Walch, bib. theol. IV. p. 278 sq. and Fabric. 
biblioth. graec. ed. Harles. TV. p. 893sq. Thiersch and Rost have begun to call the 
language of the Greek Bible the ecclestastical dialect. This, however, is too narrow for 
the subject discussed above, and the word dialect is inappropriate. 


ao ee 


see 


§ 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. 99 


1792, 8vo.), and Olearius (de Stylo N. T. p. 232 sqq.), cf. also Hartmann, 
linguist. Einl. in das Stud. d. A. T. S. 382 ff. Anm. Still, this matter ought 
to have been executed with more critical precision." Nearly all who have 
written on this subject hitherto, are chargeable, more or less, with the 
following errors : 

a. They did not give sufficient attention to the Aramaic elements in the 
diction of the N. T.’ In the time of Christ, as all know, the popular speech 29 
of the Jews in Palestine was not the old Hebrew, but Syro-Chaldaic ; ith ed. 
accordingly, many of the most current expressions of common life * must 
have been introduced into Jewish-Greek from this dialect. Among the 28 
older writers Olearius has a special section de Chaldaeo-Syriasmis N. T. bth ed. 
p- 349 sqq. (cf. Georgi, Hierocrit. I. p. 187 sqq.). More recently, a great 
deal relating to this subject has been collected by Boysen (krit. Erliuter- 
ungen des Grundtextes d. N. T. aus der syrischen Uebersetzung. Qued- 
linb. 1761, 8vo., 3 Stiicke), Agrell (oratio de dictione N. T. Wexion. 1798, 
and otiola Syriaca. Lund. 1816, 4to. pp. 53-68), and Hartmann (as above, 
382 ff). Already had several earlier commentators occasionally directed 
attention to Aramaisms; see Michaelis, Einleit. ins N. T. 1 Thl. S. 138 ff. ; 
Fischer ad Leusden, p. 140; Bertholdt’s Einleit. 1 Thl. S. 158.— Under 
this head come also the (few) Rabbinisms (see Olear. 1.c. p. 360 sqq. ; 
Georgi l.c. p. 221 sqq.), for the elucidation of which much may still be 
derived from Schéttgen, Hor. Hebr. They are mostly terms that may 
have been used in the Rabbinical schools as early as the time of Christ. 

b. They overlooked almost entirely the difference in style of the 
several writers; so that according to their collections all the books of the 43 
N.T. appear to abound in Hebraisms to the same extent. But in this 
particular no little dissimilarity exists, and Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, 
James, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews ought by no means 

to be thrown together promiscuously.t Those learned collectors failed also 


1 A new and complete treatise on the Hebraisms of the N. T., elaborated critically and 
on rational principles, is certainly needed. Meanwhile, the commencement recently 
made (D. E. Ff. Bickel, de hebraismis N. T. Spec. 1. Lips. 1840, 8vo.) deserves to be 
gratefully recognized. 

2 Many of the peculiarities pointed out by the Hebraists might with equal propriety be 
called either Hebraisms or Syriasms: e.g. eis for an indefinite article, and the frequent use 
of participles with e/va: for a finite verb. It is preferable, however, to regard these and 
the like as Aramaisms, since they are far more common and more distinctly established 
in the Aramaic, and occur almost exclusively in those later Hebrew writings the style 
of which approaches the Aramaic. This refers principally to the diction of the N. T., 
for the Septuagint exhibits but few Aramaisms. Cf. Olear. p. 808; Gesen. Com. zu 
Jes. I. 63. 

8 To these the Aramaisms of the N. T. are, essentially, confined. Yor the religious 
expressions are to be connected (through the medium of the Sept. in the case of the 
majority of extra-Palestinean Jews) with the Ancient Hebrew, the sacred language. To 


° ¥, 
the same class also belongs @dvaros, pestilence, Rey. vi. 8; xviii. 8 (amv ’ |.2aho) 3 


ef. Ewald, Com. in Apoc. p. 122. 
* Even in one and the same writer we find a want of uniformity. Thus Luke in his 


30 
7th ed. 


29 
Sth ed, 


44 


80 § 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. 
° 


to show the relation between the diction of the N.T. and that of the 
Septuagint ; though, great as the resemblance is, considerable dissimilarity 
exists, and, speaking generally, the style of the LXX. as a direct and in 
part a literal translation of the Hebrew text is more Hebraistic than that 
of the N. T. 

ce. ‘They included in their list of Hebraisms many expressions which are 
not unknown to the Greek prose writers, or are the common property of 
many languages; and, in general, they were guided by no distinct notion 
of what constitutes a Hebraism; see Tittmann, de causis contortar. inter- 
pretatt. N. T. p. 18 sq. (Synonym. I. p. 269 sqq.) ; de Wette in the A. L. Z. 
1816. N. 39. 8. 306. 

They made a threefold use of the term Hebraism, viz. to designate 

1. Such words, phrases, and constructions, as are peculiar to the Hebrew 
(Aramaean) tongue, and to which there is nothing corresponding in Greek 
prose ; e.g. orAayxvicer Oar, dpeAnpata aprevat, tposwirov AapPBavewv, oiKodo- 
pecy (in a figurative sense), tAarvvev tiv Kapdiav, Topever Oat O7iTwW, OD .+++- 
mas (for ovdeis), eEopodroyetcOai rut and ev Tu, ete. 

2. Such words, etc. as, though occasionally occurring in Greek authors, 
are imitated by the writers of the N. T. directly from their native tongue ; 
e.g. orépua for proles (Schwarz, Comm. p. 1235) hebr. 271; dvaykn distress, 
calamity (cf. D. Sic. 4, 43; Schwarz, as above, p. 81) hebr. pix2, Hpax2, 
"%, MIX; eépwrav request (as 5XY denotes both request and interrogate, cf. 
the Latin rogare) Babr. 97, 8; Apollon. synt. p. 289; eis dravrnow (D. 
Sic. 8, 59; Polyb: 5, 26,8) cf mNap>; wépara rns yns (Thue. 1, 69 ; Xen, 
Ages. 9,4; Dio Chr. 62. 587) cf. vax "ODS; yxetAos for Littus (Her. 1,191; 
Strabo, and others) cf. mpw; ocrowa of a sword (M8) cf., besides the Poets, 
Philostrat. her. 19, 4. So also the expression évdvcac6a Xpiorov (Tap- 
kvviov évdvc. in Dion. H.), formed after pax a>, etc. Cf. above, p. 17. 

3. Such words, ete., as are equally common in Greek and in Hebrew, 
and with regard to which, accordingly, there is room for doubt whether 
they are to be considered as portions of the popular Greek adopted by the 
Jews, or as currently employed by them through the influence of their 


native tongue ; e.g. Pvdaccew vomov, atwa caedes, davyp joined to an appel- | 


lative (dvnp doved’s), mats slave, peyadivew to praise, duwxev to pursue, 
(cultivate) a virtue. 'To this head may be referred many of the grammat- 
ical illustrations contained in Haab’s grammar. 

4, Lastly, it cannot be denied that in a great many passages expositors 
introduced imaginary Hebraisms (Aramaisms) ; as, Eph. v. 26, é& pjyare 
iva “WX “aI~>y (see Koppe); Matt. xxv. 23, yapa convivium from Aram. 


Gospel, where he had to follow the evangelical paradosis, hebraizes more than in the 
Acts; the deterioration in the diction after the proem of the Gospel was long ago pointed 
out. The hymns, also, and the speeches, have more of a Hebrew coloring than the nar- 
ative part; ef. e.g. Luke i. 13-20, 42-55, 68-79. The linguistic relation of Luke to the 
Synoptics has not yet been systematically exhibited. 


"2. >», se - 





§ 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. 81 


mist (see Fischer, ad Leusden dial. p. 52) or Hebr. mrvav, Esth. ix. 17, 
etc. (Eichhorn, Einl. ins N. T. I. 528) ; Matt. vi. 1, ducacoovvy alms from 
Chald. npyx; Matt. xxi. 138, Ayorad traders (Fischer, ad Leusden dial. 
p-. 48) ; and during the process many a misuse of the Sept. crept in (as 
Luke xi. 22, oxtAa supellex, cf. Esth. ili. 13; Acts ii. 24, ddtves vincula, 
ef. Ps. xviii. 6). And to crown all, zépav on this side, like “ay (?) ! Cf. 
also Fr. Rom. I. 867.1 
It is obvious from what has been said that there are two kinds of He- 
braisms in the N. T., one of which may be called perfect, and the other 
imperfect. By perfect Hebraisms we mean those words, phrases, and con- 
structions which are strictly peculiar to the Hebrew (Aramaean) language, 
and therefore were transferred directly thence into the Hellenistic idiom, 
(the diction of the N. T.).2. On the other hand, we call imperfect Hebraisms 
all words, phrases, and constructions which, though to be found also in 
Greek prose authors, are in all probability introduced directly from the 
Hebrew (Aramaean) : first, because the N. T. writers were more familiar 
with Aramaean than with Greek ; and secondly, because the phraseology 
in question was of more frequent occurrence in the former language than 
in the latter. De Wette also perceived this distinction, and stated it as 
follows (as above, S. 319): “Certainly it makes an essential difference 
whether a form of speech is wholly foreign to the Greek, or, on the other 
hand, finds in Greek a point of contact to which it can attach itself.” 

This whole investigation must be carried farther back ; and first of all 
the orzgin of the so-called Hebraisms must be considered. In doing this, 
however, we cannot take the LX X.° as our basis, since they, as translators, 


31 
Tth ed. 


50 


furnish no sure’ testimony respecting that Greek diction of the Jews which 6th ed. 


was formed independently and by oral intercourse. Nor can we immedi- 
ately use for this purpose the doctrinal parts of the N.T., as the religious 
phraseology of the Jews in Greek was naturally a close imitation of the 
Hebrew, and formed on the model of the Septuagint. But it is pre- 
eminently from the narrative style of the Apocrypha, the Gospels, and the 
Acts, that the influence of Hebrew on the Greek of Jews is to be most 
clearly determined. 

In the first place, it is plain that original writers, scarcely less than 
translators, unconsciously gave their Greek style the general impress of 
the Hebrew-Aramaic idiom, from the influence of which, as their mother 


1 Tn the title of Kaiser’s dissertation de linguae aramaicae usu cet. Norimb. 1831. 8vo. 
the word abusu would be nearer the truth. 

2 Blessig’s definition is: Hebraismus est solius hebraei sermonis propria loquendi ratio, 
cujusmodi in graecam vel aliam linguam sine barbarismi suspicione transferre non licet. 

® The most important work that has yet appeared on the linguistic element of the 
Septuagint, is 1. W. Jos. Thiersch, de Pentateuchi versione alex. libb. 3. Erlang. 1840. 
8vo., from which I have obtained many acceptable illustrations for the later editions of 
this Grammar. But a complete exhibition of the diction of the Septuagint is very 
much needed. 


45 


52 


ith ed, 


31 
Gth ed, 


46 


29 § 38. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. 


tongue, they could not rid themselves without great attention and long 
practice. ‘This general impress consists, partly in explicitness (hence the 
use of prepositions with cases instead of cases alone, the latter construction 
implying more abstraction), and a predilection for circumstantiality (pevyew 
a7 TposMmov Twos, eypady Sta XELPOS T. TavTES aTO pLKPOD Ews 
peyddov, Kal eorat— Kal éxyed, and the like; the frequent use of the pers. 
and dem. pron. particularly after the relative, the narrative expression kat 
éyévero, ete.) ; partly in the simplicity, and even monotony, with which 
the Hebrew (agreeably to a co-ordinating, rather than subordinating prin- 
ciple) constructs periods, and links clause to clause. Hence the sparing 
use of conjunctions in Jewish-Greek (in which respect the classic authors 
display so copious a variety) ; hence the uniformity in the use of the tenses ; 
hence the absence of periodic combination of several subordinate clauses 
into a single sentence, and, in connection with this, the scanty use of parti- 
cipial constructions, so frequent and so diversified among the Greeks. 

In narration, a further prominent peculiarity of Hebrew-Greek consists 
in this, that the words of another are almost always quoted directly ; 
whereas the indirect introduction of quotations gives a distinctive cast to 
the Greek historical style, and occasions particularly the diversified use of 
the Optative, a mood almost unknown in the Greek writings of Jews. 

From this general Jewish influence alone the Greek of the Jews must 


have received a strongly marked character; but in particulars it received — 


a great additional influence, and it is these particulars which are usually 
styled Hebraisms. 

a. Attaching the derivative meanings of a vernacular word to that 
foreign word which corresponds to it in primary signification was the 
simplest mode of Hebraizing (cf. épwray 5x to interrogate and to request). 
Hence it would not be strange if the Jews had used dixatocvvyn for alms, 
according to the use of np 7x. Less dubious instances are édetAnua pec- 
catum, after the Aram. 35M ; vin (bride) also daughter-in-law Matt. x. 35, 
as M22 denotes both (Sept. Gen. xxxviii. 11) ; ets for primus (in certain 
cases) like Im; éfouodoyeliaGai tut also praise one (thanking), like > min 
(Ps. cvi. 47; exxii. 4, and elsewhere in Sept.) ; evAoyety bless, ie. make 
happy, like "52; xriots thing created, creation, cf. Chald. ne"2; d0€a bright- 
ness, like 123; Svvdpes miracles, ninias. The transfer of figurative senses 
is the most frequent ; as, rorjpov sors, portio Matt. xx. 22 (013) ; oxdvdaAor 
stumbling-block in a moral sense (>4ti2"2) ; yASooa for nation (j3%2) ; xethos 
for speech (MEW) ; évesriov Tod Geod (Mi "2B>) according to God’s judgment ; 
kapdia <dOeta (MW) ; wepurarety walk, of one’s course of life ; odds (473) 
cf. Schif. ind. ad Aesop. p. 148; dvdéfeua not merely what is consecrated 
to God, but, agreeably to the Heb. 095, to be destroyed, Rom. ix. 3, Deut. 
vii. 26, Josh. vi. 17, and elsewhere; Avew Matt. xvi. 19 for declare lawful, 
after the Rabbin. "nn. 

b. Numerous Hebraisms arose from the verbal translation of certain 


§ 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. 83 


very common vernacular expressions ; as, 7pdswrov AapBavewv for O°2D NW; 
hi Yoxv for Yb] WPA; ovety edeos (xdpw) perd tuvos, for DY TON Nw; 
dvotyew TOvs bpOadpovs or 70 oTdpa. Tivds (MP) ; tee Gavérov XN O24 
(Talm.) ; igang inld (coenare) for BM> >28; aipa exyée (D5 4) kill ; 
avio Typ oTepj.a. twit for > ST DMP 5 vlos Bivdrov for moja (ot viol TOU 
voppOvos) ; Kap7ros sae for DAx>m "9D; Kapmds Kkowias for 7432 ™B; éé- 
epyer bau ex THs dodvos TwWds for “D ssn NE"; €« KowAtas penpos for aN joa; 
dpeidAnua adrévar for RIN Pw (Talm.) ; j also ornpiley mpdoswrov avrov for 
se Deh ; waca capt for nivanbo. 

e. The formation of foreign derivatives in imitation of vernacular, im- 
plies more reflection and contrivance ; as, dAokavrwya (from odoKavroiy, 
Lob. 524) for'n>3; ordayyviecOau from orddyyva, as DM is connected 
with 2van7 ; cxavdadiLew, cxavdadr.(LerOar, like puis3, Dwr ; éyxawilew from 
éyxaivia, as 727 is related to 327; dvafeparilew, like Onn; épOpicev, like 
peDwn ; perhaps évwrilec Oar, like j-3NH, cf. Fischer ad Leusden dial. p. 27. 
IIposwroAynrreiv, for which even the Hebr. has no single corresponding 
word, goes still further. 

All this easily accounts for the predominant Hebrew-Aramaic complexion 
of the style of the N. T. writers, who were not, like Philo and Josephus,’ 
acquainted with Greek literature, and did not aim at writing correct Greek. 
Hence, the whole cast of their composition (particularly the want of com- 
pactness, especially in narration) must have offended a cultivated Greek 
ear; indeed, numerous single expressions must either have conveyed 
to a native Greek an erroneous meaning, or have been entirely unintel- 
ligible (such as dduévor dherrpara,® rpdswrov AapBdvew, oyilecOar eis 
dixatocvvyny, and the like); cf. Gataker de Stylo N. T. cap. 5. Hence also 
is explained why such Hebraistic turns of expression are less frequent in 
the original authors of the N. T. than in the translators of the O. T., and 
‘in the Hellenistic writers of the N. T. (Paul, Luke, particularly in the 


1A similar Grecism in Latin is e.g. a teneris unguiculis (Cic. fam. 1, 6, 3), which 
although a Greek phrase was quite intelligible to the Romans, as e.g. kapmds yetAéwr, 
though it must have had a strange sound, was unquestionably intelligible to the Greeks; 
cf. kaprds ppevav, Pind. Nem. 10, 22. Still more easily must the Greeks have under- 
stood kapmds xo1Aias, since fruit, by itself, (for fruit of the body) was used in unambig- 
uous connections, as well among the Greeks (Arist. polit. 7, 16 ; Eurip. Bacch. 1305) 
as elsewhere ; cf. Ruhnken, ad Homer. in Cerer. 23. 

2 Though even Josephus, when narrating Old Test. history after the Septuagint, does 
not always avoid Hebraisms ; see Scharfenberg, de Josephi et LXX. consensu, in Pott’s 
sylloge, VII. p. 306 ff. 

8 That is, in the signification of remitting sins, so far, therefore, as regards dpe:Ajpara. 
For, apiévar remit, even applied to offences, occurs in Her. 6, 30, in the expression 
apiévat aitiay, and dpeAjuata apiévar debita remittere (obligatory acts), is quite common. 
In later Greek we find aqgiéva: rut thy ddixiay, Plutarch, Pomp. 34; see Coraes and 
Schif. in loc. 'The well-known phrase edpicxew xdpw would likewise have been under- 
stood by a native Greek, though it would have sounded strange to him (instead of 
edplokec@at). 


, 


5 


33 
Tth ed. 


82 
6th ed 


47 


54 


Th ed. 


6th ed. 


84 § 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. 


second part of the Acts, John, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews; 
cf. Tholuck, Com. Cap. I. § 2. S. 25 sqq.) than in those more strictly Pal- 
estinean (Matthew, Peter).’. And it is obvious, further, that not all the 
Hebraisms in the diction of the apostles were adopted wneonsciously (van 
d. Honert, Synt. p. 103). Religious expressions — and of these the main 
portion of N.'T. Hebraisms consist — they must have been influenced to 
retain by the circumstance that in these expressions their religious ideas 
themselves were embodied, and because Christianity had to be built on a 
Jewish foundation.” The existing Greek, too, possessed in fact no phrase- 
ology for the profound religious phaenomena which apostolic Christianity 
disclosed.’ Still, it is an exaggeration to assert, with Eichhorn and Bret- 
schneider (Prefat.ad Lexic. N. 'T. ed. 2. IL. p.12),* that the authors of the 
N. T. in composition did all their thinking in Hebrew or Aramaic. That 
is the process of a tyro. We moderns even, in writing Latin, after we 
have attained a certain proficiency, gradually (though never altogether) 
cease to think first in our vernacular. Men who, though not regularly 
trained in the study of language, were constantly hearing Greek spoken 
and very frequently, yes ordinarily, speaking it themselves, must soon have 
acquired such a command of its words and phrases and such skill in ex- 
pression, that in composition the Greek would present itself directly, and 
not solely through the medium of Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic words and 
phrases.” The comparison of the authors of the N. T. with modern 
beginners in writing Latin, or even with (uneducated) Jews speaking 


1 The Grecian training of individual writers appears particularly in the appropriate 
use of verba composita and decomposita. . 
2 Cf. Beza, ad Act. x. 46. Rambach is not altogether wrong in saying (institutt. 


hermen. 1, 2, 2): lingua N. T. passim ad ecbraei sermonis indolem conformata est, ut _ 


hoc modo concentus scripturae utriusque test. non in rebus solum sed ipsis etiam in 
verbis clarius observaretur. Cf. Pfaff. nott. ad Matt. p. 34; Olear. 341 sqq. ; Tittmann, 
de dilig. gramm. p. 6 sq. (Synon. I. p. 201 sq.). Further cf. J. W. Schroder, de causis 
quare dictio pure graeca in N. T. plerumque praetermissa sit, Marb. 1768. 4to.; also 
van Hengel, com. in ep. ad Philipp. p. 19. 

3 Some good remarks on this point are to be found in Hvalstroem, spec. de usu ae 
tatis alex. in N. T. (Upsal. 1794. 4to.) p. 6sq. Van den Honert went even so far as to 
assert : vel ipse Demosthenes, si candem rem, quam nobis tradiderunt apostoli, debita 
perspicuitate et efficacia perscribere voluisset, hebraismorum usum evitare non potuisset. 

4 The latter, however, recalled this opinion, so far at least as regards Paul (Grundlage 
des evang. Pictism. u. s. w. S. 179). 

5 How easily do we, who never heard Latin spoken by a native Roman, attain the 
power of at once conceiving in Latin, dixit verum esse, or quam virtutem demonstravit 
aliis praestare, and the like, without first mentally construing dixit quod verum sit, or 
de qua virtute demonstravit, quod ea, etc. Thinking in conformity to the genius of 
one’s mother tongue, appears particularly in phrases and figures which have become 
habitual, and which one introduces unconsciously in speaking or writing a foreign 
language. So it was with the apostles, who constantly employed, and with perfect pro- 
priety, along with many Hebraistic expressions, numerous Greek phrases entirely foreign 
to the genius of Hebrew. 


§4. GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION. 85 


German, is as incorrect as it is unworthy; cf. Schleiermacher, Hermeneut. 
S. 54, 59, 257. Besides, it is forgotten that the apostles found a Jewish- 
Greek idiom already current, and therefore Wid not first frame for them- 
selves most of their phraseology by thinking it out in Hebrew. 

(Many Greek words are used by the N.'T. writers with a specific 
reference to the Christian system (even in contrast with Judaism), so to 48 
speak, like religious technical terms. Hence arises, apparently, a third 
element of N.T. diction, viz. the distinctively Christian (see Olear. de 
Stylo N. T. p. 380 sqq. ed. Schwarz ; Eckard, technica sacra. Quedlinb., 
1716. 4to.). Compare particularly the words épya (épydferPar Rom iv. 4), 
riots, TisTeEvew eis Xpiorov or micTevetv absol., ducdoyia, duxatoovvy and ducat- 
odoba, exhéyerOar, ot KAgrol, ot éxAekrol, ot ayvor (fox Christians), ot mrrot 
and of dmwrot, oikodop.y and oikodopety in the figurative sense, dadcToXos, 
evayyeAieo Par and Kxypirrew absol. for Christian preaching, the appropria- 
tion of Barricpa for Christian baptism, perhaps «Adv... 7ov... daprov 35 
for the holy repasts (the Agape with the Communion), 6 Kdcpos, 7) oap€, Tih ed. 
6 gapxKikos, in the familiar theological sense, etc. Most of these expressions, 
however, already existed in the O. T. and in rabbinical writings.’ Accord- 
ingly it will not be easy to prove any phraseology to be altogether pecu- 
liar to the apostles —to have been tntroduced by them. ‘This apostolic 
element, therefore, is restricted rather to the meaning and application of 
words and phrases, and lies on the very outskirts of the province of philo- 
logical inquiry. Cf., however, Schleiermacher, Hermeneut. S. 56, 67 f. 
138 f. [and G. v. Zezschwitz, Profangriicitiit u. biblisch. Sprachgeist. Eine 
Vorl. iib. die bibl. Umbildung hellenischer Begriffe, bes. der psychologischen. 
Leipz. 1859. 8vo.]. In the historical vocabulary wacyew to suffer, and 
mapadidoaGa to be delivered up, absol., had established themselves as tech- 
nical expressions for the last earthly fate of Jesus.) 

- Grammatical Hebraisms will be discussed in the next section. 


§4. GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION. 84 
6th ed. 


As respects the grammatical character of the N.T. diction, 
those same two elements above mentioned may be distinctly traced. 
That is to say, here also the peculiarities of the N.'T. phraseology 
are, fundamentally, those of the later (common) Greek language, 
and consist more in certain forms of inflection than in syntactical 
combinations. With these are occasionally mingled (though far 


1 To attempt to explain such expressions in the Christian terminology of the apostles 
by quotations from Greek authors (cf. Krebs, obsery. praef. p. 4) is extremely absurd. 
But, on the other hand, it is necessary to distinguish the diction of the apostles, far 
more tinged as it was with Old Testament peculiarities, from the terminology of the 
Greek Church, which was constantly growing more and more peculiar. 


49 


9 
Vv 


Tih cd, 


9 
35 


bth ed, 


86 §4 GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION. 


less copiously) Hebrew turns and constructions in the use of all 
the parts of speech. A predilection for prepositions where the 
Greeks employ cases alone is especially noticeable. In general 
the grammatical character of the N.'T. idiom conforms to the laws 
of the Greek language ; the authors of the N. T. have even adopted 
many constructions peculiarly Greek (attraction of the relative 
and the preposition), and have observed strictly, though as by 
mere instinct, numerous distinctions entirely foreign to Hebrew 
(e.g. that between the negatives ov and yu, etc.). 


We find it true in Greek, as in almost all languages the history of whose 
growth can be traced, that changes produced by time are lexical in their 
nature far more than grammatical (compare, for instance, the German of 
Luther’s translation of the Bible with that of the present day). For the 
later common Greek exhibits but few grammatical peculiarities, and these 
almost all relate to inflections. We find, that is to say, first and foremost, 
a number of inflections in nouns and verbs which either were not used at 
all previously, and were first formed in later times by the abbreviation or 
the extension of the original forms, or which pertained exclusively to some 
one of the dialects. Of the latter sort are, for example, a. Attic inflections : 
react, nBovdAnOnv, nucdrrc, Bove (PovrAy), ower; b. Doric: 7 Aysos as fem., 
ntw (oT), abewvrar (adetvrar) ; c. Molic: the Optat. in ea in Ist Aor. 
(yet this was early adopted into Attic) ; d. lonic: ynpe, oxeipys, ctra 
(Ist Aor.). As forms quite unknown in the earlier language must be 
mentioned, Datives like vot, Imperat. xéov, Perfects like e¢yvwxay (for 
éyvoxaot), 2d Aorists and Imperfects like xareAtzoaay, édohuotcay, 2d Aorists 
like cidapev, &pvyav, the Subjunctive Future § 15, 1. e., the Imperf. iy<Oa. 
To this head specially belong many tenses, regular indeed according to 
analogy, but in place of which the earlier language used other forms; as, 


hpdaprnoa for npapror, avfw for aifdvw, nga from jkw, pddyouot for dopa, 


etc.; indeed, the multiplication of tense and mood forms, of which for 
euphony’s sake only a few had been previously in use, is one of the char- 
acteristics of the later language. Further, many nouns received a new 
gender, as 7 for 6 Paros, and acquired thus a twofold declension; as, 
movtos, éAeos; see § 9 note 2, p. 65. 

Peculiarities of syntax are less numerous in the later language, — 
appearing chiefly in a careless use of the moods with particles. The 
following are instances under this head in the N. T.: orav with the Indie. 
Pret., ef with the Subj., va with the Indic. Pres., verbs such as yeveoOat, 
Karaoudcew construed with the Acc., zposkvvety and zposdwvety with Dat. 
of pers. (see Lob. 463; Mtth. II. 902), the weakening of iva in phrases 
like O€\w iva, agus iva, etc., the employment of the Gen. Inf. (rod zovetv) 
beyond its original and natural bounds, the use of the Subj. for the Optat. 
in narration after Preterites, and in general the infrequent use of the 


See 4 


§4, GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N.T. DICTION. 87 


Optat., which in Modern Greek has entirely disappeared. MéddAcw, Oédeu, 
ete., are more commonly followed by the Aor. Inf. (Lob. 747). The 
neglect of declension is just beginning to appear; thus, pera tod ev, and 
the like (which is, however, put designedly), § 10 end. Subsequently 
‘the misapplication of cases and tenses in some instances also occurs. ‘Thus 
ovv with the Gen. in Niceph. Tact. (Hase ad Leon. Diac. p. 88), aro with 
the Acc. in Leo Grammat. (p. 232) and then in Modern Greek, the inter- 
change of the Aor. and Pres. participles in Leo Diac. and elsewhere. 
The Dual was gradually superseded by the Plural. 

In a grammatical point of view the N.T. idiom bears few traces of 
Hebrew influence. True, the grammatical structure of the Hebrew 50 
(Aramaic) language differs essentially from that of the Greek; but this 37 
must have tended rather to prevent the Greek-speaking Jews from mixing ‘hed. 
vernacular with Greek constructions. (Such mixture of constructions 
would be far easier to a German in speaking Latin or French.) Besides, 
every one makes the grammatical laws of a foreign language his own, 
more easily than he does its store of words and phrases and its general 
idiomatic peculiarities (cf. Schleiermacher, Hermeneut. §. 73). This is 
so because the rules of syntax are but few in comparison with the number 
of words and phrases, and because these rules too (especially the principal 
ones, which are fundamental to accurate, not elegant, composition) by 
oral intercourse are far more frequently brought before the mind. The 
Jews, therefore, must have been able readily to acquire such a mastery 
of the grammatical rules of the Greek then current — which by no means 
possessed all the niceties of Attic — as sufficed for their simple mode of 
communicating their thoughts. Even the Seventy have succeeded for 
the most part in recasting Hebrew constructions into accurate Greek. 
-Only a few vernacular idioms of frequent occurrence, and not at variance 
with the rules of Greek Grammar, have been retained to the letter (such 
-as instead of the Optat. an interrogative clause expressing a wish, 2 Sam. 36 
xy. 4, ris pe Kataoryce xpiryv; xxiii. 15; Num. xi. 29; Deut. v. 26; bthed. 
xxviii. 67; Cant. viii. 1°), or, where it could be done, rendered in accord- 
ance at least with Greek analogy (as, Qavdtw dmoGaveicbe Gen. iii. 4, m7 
vam Deut. xx. 17; 1 Sam. xiv. 39; Isa. xxx. 19) or by a construction 
already usual in Greek (see, however, § 45,8), Judg. xv. 2 pucdv éulonoas 
for muiw sv, Gen. xlili. 2; Ex. xxii. 17; xxiii. 26; 1 Sam. ii. 25, etc.; 


1 Certain Greek idioms became quite habitual to them, such as the article with qual- 
ifying words and phrases after a noun (6 xvpios 6 év odpav@, and the like), the attraction 
of the relative, ete. Negatives, also, they almost always distinguish correctly. The 
more extended use of the Greek cases is exhibited by the better translators, as e.g. Gen. 
XXVi. 10, pixpod exoruhOn it wanted little that, ete. 

2 Cf. Rom. vii. 24, where Fr. adduces similar instances from Greek poets. The con- 
struction with 7@s (av) followed by the Optat. or Subjunct. is discussed by Schaefer, 
ad Soph. Oed. Col. p. 523, and Melet. p. 100. 


38 
Tih ed. 


vad 


DL 


9 
cD) 


Gth ed. 


88 § 4. GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION. 


cf. also Inf. with 700.1. Hebrew constructions thoroughly repugnant to the 
genius of the Greek, the Septuagint have usually rejected. For instance, 
the Fem. for the Neut. occurs only in a few passages, where the translators 
have not duly adverted to the meaning of the text, or have given it a 
nervously literal rendering ; as, Ps. cxix. 50; cxvill. 23; and it is hardly 
allowable to suppose that they designedly employed it for the Neut. In 
other passages the Heb. Fem. refers manifestly to a feminine subject indi- 
cated in the context; as, Judges xix. 80. On the other hand, év ravry in 
Neh. xiii. 14 is probably equivalent to tavry in Greek authors, in this 
respect, hoc in genere (Xen. Cyr. 8, 8,5) or therefore (cf. ravryn ore propterea 
quod, Xen. Anab. 2, 6, 7); see also 1 Sam. xi. 2. The construction of 
Hebrew verbs with prepositions is imitated oftenest; as, qeidecOar éxi 
tut Deut. vii. 16, or éxé twa Ezek. vii. 4, oixodopety & tue Neh. iv. 10 
(2 M22), érepwrdy ev kupiy (Minna xd) 1 Sam. x. 22, evdoxety & Tun 
(2 yen Fr. Rom. II. 3871). These imitations sound harsh in Greek, it 
must be confessed, yet in that flexible idiom they might find some point 
of affinity. (Cf the Germ. bauen an etwas, fragen bez, etc.) 

Even, however, if the Septuagint contained numerous other slavish 
imitations of Hebrew constructions, that would prove nothing in reference 
to the N.T. idiom. For, as has already been said, the style of these 
translators who, moreover, adhered for the most part with rigid exactness 
to the very letter of the Hebrew, — which sometimes indeed they did not 
even understand, — was by no means the model followed by the Jews in 
original composition or conversation. So far as regards the several rules 
of grammar, the N.'T. is written thoroughly in Greek, and the few un- 
doubted grammatical Hebraisms it contains become hardly discernible. 

To Hebraisms of this sort may be referred, with more or less assurance,’ 
the use of prepositions where the Greeks employ cases alone (aoxpvrrewv 
TL a7 0 Tos, eobiew ATO TdV Yyiwy, AHBos ATO TOV aipaTos, KoWwVOs eV 
TWL, Gpéerxew and mposkuvety vor iov Twos, evookety and Gédrew ev tur). Many 
such peculiarities, however, pertain to antique simplicity, and are accord- 
ingly in use among the Greeks themselves, especially the poets, and con- 


1 Hemsterhuis, ad Lucian. dial. mar. 4, 3: saepenumero contingit, ut locutio quaedam 
native graeca a LXX. interpretib. et N. T. scriptoribus mutata paululum potestate ad 
hebraeam apte exprimendam adhibeatur. 

2 The translation of the Psalms is, in general, one of the most heedless. That of 
Nehemiah is little better. Aquila, who translated word for word (absurdly rendering 
for instance, the nota acc. MX by cvv), cannot be taken into consideration at all in an 
inquiry into the grammatical character of Hellenistic Greek. In order to give a literal 
translation he violates without hesitation the rules of grammar; as, Gen. i. 5, éxdAecey 
6 Oeds tH wri nuépa. And yet he always uses the article with propriety, and even em- 
ploys the attraction of the relative ; so deeply were both rooted in the Greek language! 

8 Imaginary Hebraisms are, the supposed Plur. excell., the A essentiae, combinations 
erroneously regarded as circumlocutions for the superlative like odAmvyé tod Geod, the 
use of the Fem. for the Neut., and probably the Hypallage already mentioned 7a pnuwata 


THs (wns tains for TadTa Ta phuata THs Cwijs. 





Cr a i. Ok te Ye 


§4, GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N.T. DICTION. 39 


sequently do not exactly conflict with the genius of the language; as, 
mavew G70 TLOS. 

Special and more decided instances are : 

_ a. The verbal imitation of such Hebrew constructions as offend against 
Greek propriety ; as, duodoyely & tun, Brerew aro sibi cavere a, mposébero 
repo, <i SoOyoerat as a form of negatory oath ; ; 

b. The repetition of a word to denote distribution, as dvo dvo dint, 
instead of dva dvo ; 

ce. The imitation of the Inf. absol. (see above) ; 

d. The use of the Gen. of an abstract noun for the kindred adjective, 
and probably the very frequent use of the Inf. with a preposition (and its 
subject in the Acc.) in narration. — 

The peculiarities classed under a. and b. may be regarded as pure 
Hebraisms. 

~ When, however, it is considered that by far the majority of construc- 
tions in the N. T. are genuine Greek, and that the N.T. writers have 
constantly employed such peculiarities of Greek syntax' as differed entirely 
from their vernacular idiom,—as the distinction of the different past 
tenses, the use of av with verbs, the attraction of the relative, such an 
expression as oikovopiav remictreva, the use of the Sing. with Neuters, 
etc., — we shall not be disposed to join in the cry about countless gram- 
matical Hebraisms in the N.T. That the diction of the N. T. is grammat- 
ically far less Hebraistic than that of the Septuagint and the Palestinean 
Apocrypha, as might naturally be expected, will be manifest, if, when the 
expressions just specified as Hebraistic are observed in the Septuagint, it 
is also noticed that many a vernacular idiom in the LXX. never occurs 
in the N.'T., or (such as an interrogative clause for the Opt.) only in soli- 


_tary cases in impassioned style. A circumlocution for the Fut., as évopat 


8ddvar Tob. v. 14, or the repetition of a substantive to denote every (Num. 
ix. 10; 2 Kings xvii. 29; 1 Chron. ix. 27), never occurs there.? 

The N. IT. writers considered separately exhibit extremely few purely 
grammatical peculiarities. Only the book of Rey. requires particular, 
though not exceptional, attention in a treatise on the grammar of the N. T. 

Finally, throughout the investigation into the grammatical character of 
the N.T. diction, it is obvious that the diversity of readings must be care- 
fully attended to; on the other hand, it is also plain that verbal criticism 
can be successfully practised only in connection with a thorough acquain- 
tance with the linguistic (lexical) peculiarities of the several N. T. writers. 


1 The more refined elegances of literary Attic are not to be found in the N. T., partly 
because they were unknown in the popular language adopted by the N. T. writers, partly 
because they were unsuited to the simple cast of thought of the sacred authors. 

2 Yet in the better translated portions of the O. T’. and in the Palestin. Apocrypha 
we find single Greek constructions, on the other hand, instead of which the authors of the 
N. T. use the corresponding Hebraisms; thus, in 3 Esr. vi. 10; Tob. iii. 8, the Gen. is 
used with strict Grecian propriety. Further, cf. Thiersch, de Pentat. alex. p. 95 sq. 


52 


9 
vu 


Tth ed. 


38 
bth ed. 


40 
ith ed. 


39 
bth ed. 


53 


des Wed Riad Wie! Bel 


THE GRAMMATICAL FORMS AS RESPECTS THEIR FORMATION. 
(INFLECTION.) 


eee aaa 


§ 5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 


1. THE best manuscripts of the N. T. (like those of the Greek 
classics, see Poppo, Thue. I. 214; Mtth. I. 133) exhibit extraor- 
dinary variations of orthography, especially in regard to particular 
words and forms. Amid such diversity it cannot always be de- 
termined on satisfactory grounds what is correct. However, 
editors of the text should lay down precise rules, and carry them 
out consistently. 

Though the various Codd. have recently been collated with 
ereater diplomatic exactness, still, on many points, a more careful 
settlement of the facts is to be desired. 

We submit the following remarks: 

a. The use of an apostrophe to prevent a hiatus is of much 
rarer occurrence in the Codd. of the N.'T. and of the Sept., than 
in the texts of native Greek authors (especially the orators ; ef. 
G. EK. Benseler, de hiatu in scriptorib. gr. P. I. Friberg. 1841. 8vo. ; 
the same, de hiatu in Demosth. Friberg. 1847. 4to.): dua, dpa, 
dpa, yé, eué, Ett, a, waste, never suffer elision of the last vowel ; 
dé (before ay) and ovdé very seldom (Matt. xxiii. 16 and 18; 
xxiv. 21; Rom. ix..% ; 1 Cor: xiv. 21°; Heb. vin, 4 3? bukeeeeee 
2Cor.:iii. 16; xi. 21; Phil. ii. 185 1 John 125 pi) Pee 
the prepositions amé, dua, émi, mapa, mera, and the conjunction 
anne regularly suffer clision, the former particularly before pro- 
nouns and in phrases of frequent occurrence, as am’ apyijs, ete. ; 
avrt only in av? ov. Yet the manuscripts vary in those cases, 
and even the best in particular passages, especially in regard to 
ard. Thus the Cod. Alex. [Sin.] and some others, have in Acts 
Xxvi. 25 ddr adnOelas 3; Vii. 89 GAXA arr@cavTo ; 2 Pet. ii. 5 adda 


§ 5, ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 41 


SySoov. The best Codd. have 2 Cor. xii. 14 dxad duds, and Gal. 
iv. T d\Aa vios. So also the authority of manuscripts is in favor 
of, Luke ii. 36 wera avdpes ; xiv. 31 peta eixoor; 2 Cor. vi. 15 pera 
amictov; Rev. xxi. 13 amo dvatonov; Heb. xi. 34 amo do@eveias, 41 
Jude 14 amo ’Adau; 2 Cor. v. T dia e’dous. Cf. also Acts ix. 6; ith ed. 
x. 20; xvi. 87; 2 Cor.iv. 2; v.12; Luke xi. 17 é7i ofxkov; Matt, 54 
xxi. 5 émwt dvov, etc. There is a preponderance of authority for 
Luke iii. 2 él apysepéws, and Matt. xxiv. 7 émi €Ovos; 1 Cor. vi. 11 ied 
ada arerovcacbe, ad\AA EdiKatwOn7e; Whereas the authority is 
equal in Rom. vii. 13 for d\Aa@ 7 dyapria and the other reading. 
Cf. besides, Sturz, dial. Alex. p. 125. That among lonic authors 
the same indifference about shunning a hiatus prevails is well 
known; and accordingly this peculiarity in the N. T. is styled by 
the earlier biblical philologists an Ionism. Elision is neglected, 
however, by Attic prose authors, though the instances which Georgi 
produces from Plato cannot all be trusted (Hierocrit. N.T. I. p. 
143). See Bttm. I. 8. 123 ff; Heupel, Marc. p. 33; Benseler, 
Exe. to his edition of Isocr. Areop. p. 885 sqq.; Jacobs, praef. ad 
Aclian. anim. p. 29sq.; Thucyd. ed. Poppo III. II. 358. Perhaps 
this variation is not without principle, as e.g. Sintenis (Plutarch. 
vit. IV. p. 8321sqq.) has reduced to rules the use of the hiatus in 
Plutarch. In the N. T., too, the omission of the elision might be 
occasionally traced to the writer’s intent, on one ground or another; 
not that the apostles bestowed attention on such things, but so far 
as they were guided by an instinctive sense of propriety. On this 
point, however, there is a risk of trifling (Bengel on 1 Cor. vi. 11) 
Even in Lchm. the poetic quotation from Menander, 1 Cor. xy. 33, is 
written with the elision—ypiof (for xpyora) duiAtar Kaxal; cf. Georgi, 
Hierocrit. 1.186. ‘The best Codd., however, of the N. T. [Sin. also] have 
xpyord, which Tdf. has adopted. 


b. In regard to final ¢ in ottws, pwéxpis, and the so-called vy 
éperxvotixdy (Voemel, de v et s adductis literis. Fcf. a. M. 1853. 
4to; Haake, Beitrige z. griech. Grammat. I. Heft), editors have 
mostly followed the known rule, which, however, has been restricted 
by more recent grammarians (Bttm. I. 92ff.). But it is more 
advisable to be guided in every case by the authority of the best 
Codd., and accordingly recent N. T. critics have printed otrws and 
vp édedxvotixov throughout, agreeably to the uncial Codd. (Tdf. 
praef. ad N.'T. p. xxiii. [ed. vii. p. liii.]). Critics have tried to 
deduce from the Greek prose authors a fixed rule for determining 


when ovtws or ota, elzev or eizre, etc., should be used (Bornem. 
6 « 


6th ed. 
5 


42 §5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 


xed 


de gemina Cyrop. recens. p. 89, whom Poppo in his Index to the 
Cyrop. follows; Frotscher, Xen. Hier. p.9; Bremi, Aeschin. Ctesiph. 
38and 4; Schaf. Demosth. I. p. 207; Matzner, ad Antiphont. p.192), 
and it is in itself not unlikely that the more careful authors were 
guided in this by euphony (Franke in Jahn’s Jahrb. 1842. S. 247) 
and other considerations,! though ancient grammarians affirm 
(Bekkeri Anecd. III. p. 1400) that even the Attics wrote v éped- 
xvotixov indiscriminately before consonants even (Jacobs, praef. 


5 ad Aclian. anim. p. 23 sq.), and so it appears in the Codd. ; ef. 


also Bachmann, Lycophr. I. 156 sq. ; Benseler, Isocr. Areopag. p. 
185sq. On pexpe and péxpis, axypte and dypis in particular, see 
Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 479. According to the grammarians the 
Attic orthography requires wéyps and dype even before a vowel 
(Th. M. p. 185; Phryn. p. 14; cf. Bornem. Xen. Cyrop. 8, 6, 20), 
and so they are printed by recent editors; ef. Stallb. Plat. Phaed. 
p. 188. and Sympos. p. 128; Schaf. Plutarch. V. p. 268. See in 
general Klotz, Devar. p. 231. Yet even in Attic authors good 
Codd. have not unfrequently the form with s. In the N. T. the 
best Codd. give péype invariably, and aype even before vowels, 
Acts xi. 5; xxviii. 15; but dypis od, Rom. xi. 25; 1 Cor. xi. 26; 
xv. 25, etc., preponderates (also Acts vii. 18). 

Codd. vary also as to v in eixoot, but the best are said to omit it, see 
Tdf. praef. ad N. T. p. 23 [ed. vii. p. 54], though in the appar. this matter 
is but seldom noticed. On dvrixpus, as most authorities [Sin. also] have » 
in Acts xx. 15, not dytixpv, see Lob. Phryn. p. 4438 sq.; Bttm. II. 366. 


c. In compounds whose first part ends in ¢, Knapp, after Wolf 
(liter. Analect. 1 Bd. S. 460 ff. ; cf. Kriig. S. 12), introduced the 
form ¢ for a, and has been followed in this by Schulz and Fr., e.g. 
asTrep, OsTus, dUsKOAoS, eishéperv. Still, Matthiae’s objections CI. 8. 
26) deserve great consideration; and this orthography, as it has 
no historic warrant, has no great claim to adoption. Schneider 
in Plato, and Lchm. in the N.T., write @ozep, eicaxoveuv, etc. 
Hm., however, committed himself to the former method. . That 
it is inadmissible in such words as apecButepos, BrAacdypety, Te- 
Aechopety, is obvious. 

d. Of more importance than all this is the unusual mode of 
spelling certain words and classes of words which is found even 


1 The disputed question, whether ofrws or otrw was the original spelling (for the 
former see Schdf. Plutarch. V. p. 219, for the latter Bitm. I]. 264), and whether vy éeAk. 
really belongs to the forms to which it is annexed (see fost, Gramm. 8. 71; Krii. 30) 
is not relevant here. 


§ 5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 43 


in the manuscripts of the N.T. and has been almost without 
exception adopted into the text by Lchm. and Tdf. This com- 
prehends peculiarities of Alexandrian orthography (and pronun- 
ciation). We notice the following particulars : 


1. For évexa we find in MSS. (and in the text. rec.) several times the 


Ionic form eivexa or eivexev (Wolf, Dem. Lept. p. 388 ; Georgi, Hierocr. I. 43 
182), elsewhere évexev: the last e.g. Matt. xix. 29; Rom. viii. 36; the first tMhed 
Luke iv. 18; 2 Cor. iii. 10; vii. 12. The authority of good Codd. must 56 


alone here decide; cf. Poppo, Cyrop. p. xxxix and Ind. Cyrop. and W. m. 
Buttm. 1.369. In the N. T. at least no distinction can be fixed between 
the two forms; Weber, Demosth. 403sq. See also Bremi, exc. VI. ad 
Lysiam p. 443 sqq. 

2. According to good MSS. even of the N. T. (e.g. Codd. [Sin. and] 
Cantabr.) and according to the Etymol. Mag. évvevnxovra Matt. xviii. 12,13; 
Luke xv. 4, 7, is better written éverjxovra; see Bttm. I. 277; Bornem. 
Xen. Anab. p. 47. So also évaros occurs according to good Codd. in Matt. 
xx. 5; xxvii. 45; Luke xxiii. 44; Acts x. 30, ete.; cf. also Rineck, lucu- 
bratt. p. 33, a form very common in Greek prose authors (see Schiif. Melet. 
p- 82; Scholiast ad Apollon. Argon. 2, 788), and also found in the Rosetta 
Inscription, 4th line. It was preferred by Bengel, appar. ad Matt. xx. 5. 

3. The Ionic form (Mtth. I. 54) réooepes, reaoepdxovra occurs several 
times in good Codd. (particularly Alex. [Sin.] and Ephraemi) ; e.g. Acts 
iy. 22; vii. 42; xiii. 18; Rev. xi. 2; xiii. 5; xiv. 1; xxi. 17, and Lchm. 
and Tdf. have admitted it into the text. It frequently occurs also in Codd. 
of the Sept. (Sturz, dial. Alex. p.118). In these ancient documents, how- 
ever, a and ¢€ are often interchanged, and one would scarcely consent to 
write Matt. viii. 3 éxafepio6y, Luke xvii. 14 éxafepicbnoav, or Heb. x. 2 
‘Kekabepicpevovs with A, and the like. 

4, For Boadavruv in every place where it occurs, Luke x. 4; xii. 33; 
xxii. 35, 36, good Codd. have BadAavriov, and this Lchm. and Tdf. have 
printed. Also in MSS. of Greek authors we find this doubling both in 
BadAavruov itself (Bornem. Xen. conv. p. 100) and in its derivatives. 
Bekker in his Plato has adopted it. Yet see Dindorf, Aristoph. ran. 772, 
and Schneider, Plat. civ. I. p. 75, II. p. 38. The word xpaBBaros is but 
seldom written with a single 6 (and then mostly xpaBarros). 

5. As to tromilw (tromelw) for tram (from izwmov), Luke xviii. 5; 
1 Cor. ix. 27 var., see Lob. p. 461. It is probably merely a mistake of 
the copyists ; for Paul undoubtedly used the more characteristic irwmialo 
and that has now long stood in the text. Whether we should write 
dvwyatov or dvdyaiov can hardly be determined, the authorities for each 
being nearly equal. The former is derived from the ady. dvw, the latter 
from dva (Fr. Mr. 611). See, besides, Lob. p. 297. 

6. The well-known controversy about the right way of spelling adverbs 
in tor e (Hm. Soph. Ai. p. 183; Sturz, opusc. p. 229 sqq.), affects the 


Ae 
ad 


Gil ed 


57 


44 
Tth ed. 


43 
6th ed. 


44 § 5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES, 


N. T. only in regard to wavoxi Acts xvi. 84; cf. Plat. Eryx. 892 c.; Aesch. 
dial. 2,1; Joseph. Antt. 4, 4,4; 8 Mace. iii. 27. Bloomfield, glossar. in 
Aesch. Prom. p. 131 sq., is perhaps right in thinking that such adverbs 
from nouns in os should be written with « gnly (aavotki, properly zavouxol, 
as some Codd. have in Acts, as above). Still, nearly all the Codd. are in 
favor of e«; see Poppo, Thue. II. I. 1540; Lob. 515. 

7. Should we write Aavid or Aafid? See Gersdorf, Sprachchar. I. 44, 
who leaves it undecided, yet adopts the spelling with 8. The Codd. usually 
have it abbreviated, Aad, yet occasionally the older and better, where they 
give it at full length, have Aavid (Aaveid), as Knapp, Schulz, Fr., Tdf. 
have printed it. Montfaucon, Palaeograph. graec. 5, 1, decided for the 
latter. Lchm.has invariably Aaveid; cf. besides Bleek on Heb. iv. 7. 

8. The name of Moses is written Mwio7s in the principal Codd. of the 
N. T. (as in the Sept. and Josephus), and this has been adopted by Knapp, 
Schulz, Lchm., Tdf. Still, it is a question whether this properly Coptic 
form, which in the Sept. is justifiable, should not in the N. T. give place 
to the form Mwo7s, which comes nearer the Hebrew and is certainly more 
usual; this passed over also to the Greeks (Strabo 16, 760sq.) and 
Romans, and has been retained by Scholz. On the diaeresis in Mwiiojs, 
dropped by Lchm., see Fr. Rom. II. 313. 

9. As to KoAoooai and KoAacoai see the expositors on Col. i. 1. The 
first of these forms is found not only on the coins of that city (Eckhel, 
doctrina numor. vett. I. ITI. 147), but also in the best Codd. of the classies 
(cf. Xen. Anab. 1, 2, 6); hence it was preferred by Valckenaer, ad Her. 
7,30. In the N. T., however, the form with a has more authority, and 
has been adopted by Lehm. and Tdf. It exhibits probably the popular 
pronunciation. 

10. For évveds Acts ix. 7, it is better to write éveds (cf. dvews), agreeably 
to the best Codd. 

11. The un-Attic form ovfeds, otfév, is found altogether in the N.T. 
only in single though good Codd., Luke xxiii. 14; 1 Cor. xiii. 2 f.; 2 Cor. 
xi. 8; Acts xv. 9; xix. 27: pO Acts xxiii. 14; xxvii. 33; see Lob. 
Phryn. p. 181sq. It occurs also in the Sept. (Bornem. Act. p. 115) and 
in Greek papyrus rolls. 

12. "E6v6y 1 Cor. v. 7, text. rec., for which all the better Codd. have 
érv0n (Bttm. I. 78), is unusual, but rests on an unexceptionable retaining 
of the radical 6 where there is no reduplication (AvGwOjvat, KabopOjvac), 
though both the verbs Ovew and Oetvar (the only ones of which the stem 


begins with 6 and which form a Ist Aor.) change the radical @ in the 1st | 


Aor. into r (Lob. Paralip. 45). The participle @v6e/s, analogous in form 
to the above example, occurs in Dio Cass. 45,17. (In Aesch. Choéph. 
2492. the editions have rv@eis). It is not improbable that the first form 
was employed by Paul, and suppressed by the copyists. 

13. For ypewderérns the best Codd. have xpeopederns Luke vii. 41 ; 


+ a) al i aia lei 


§5, ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 45 


xvi. 5, which Zonaras rejects, and it occurs only once in the MSS. of 
Greek authors ; see Lob. Phryn. p. 691. 

14. The rough mutes for the smooth in éfide Acts iv. 29, and adidw 
Phil. ii. 23, Lchm. has already adopted on the authority of MSS. Other 
similar forms are éf éAzidu 1 Cor. ix. 10; adedrigovres Luke vi. 35; odx 
oveobe Luke xvii. 22 ; ovx ‘Tovdaixds Gal. 11. 14; ody 6XAlyos Acts xii. 18, 
etc., (cf. Bornem. Acta, p. 24). Analogous forms occur in the Sept. 
(Sturz, dial. Alex. p. 127) and in Greek inscriptions (Béckh, Inscript. I. 
501, and II. 774), and are explained by the fact that many of those words, 
as éAzis, idetv, had been pronounced with the digamma. 

15. Ipais and zpairys appear in the N.'T. to be the better attested 
readings, though Photius, in his Lexicon, p. 386, Lips., prefers mpaos ; yet 
see Lob. Phryn. p. 403 sq. 

16. “Ex6és (not x@és, Lob. path. p. 47) Lchm. has already received into 
the text, agreeably to the best Codd. 


2. Whether such words as ova ti, twa tl, dua ye, GAA ye, aT 
dptt, Tour éote should be written separate or united, can hardly be 
determined on any general principle; and the matter is of the less 
moment as the best Codd. themselves vary extremely. Knapp 
has printed most such words combined ; and, in fact, two small 
words in expressions of frequent recurrence are wont readily to 
blend thus in pronunciation (as the erases in 610, dv0T1, Ka@a, wsre, 


58 


45 
Tth ed. 


44 


also ponxére and others, show). Schulz, on the contrary, defends Mthed 


their separation. Would he write also e ye, toe viv, ov« rt, etc. ? 
How much the Codd. in the main favor their junction may be 
seen from Poppo, Thuc. I. p. 455. Schulz himself, too, has printed 
dvatravtos Mark v. 5, Luke xxiv. 53; and Schneider in his Plato 
follows almost invariably the united mode of writing them. Many 
inconveniences, however, would arise from carrying out strictly 
either mode of writing; and as the oldest and best Codd. of the 
N. TT. are written continuously, thus affording no guidance on this 
point, it would probably be advisable constantly to combine such 
words in the N. 'T’. in the following cases: a. Where the language 
supplies an obvious analogy, e.g. ov«ére like pnxért, rovyap like 
Towur, ostis cf. drov. b. Where one of the words does not elsewhere 
occur separately (in prose) ; therefore, eizrep, kaimep. c. When an 
enclitic follows a monosyllable or dissyllable with which it usually 
constitutes a single idea, as e’ze, eltye, dpaye; but not Sidye THY 
avaideay Luke xi. 8 (Lehm. divides). d. Where the words have 
a different signification according as they are separated or united ; 
as, ostisody quicumque, but ds Tus obv Matt. xviii. 4 quisquis igitur 
(Bttm. I. 808), efavrijs adv. and é& airs (not to mention ovdeds 


46 
Tth ed. 


45 
6th ed. 


46 §5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 


and ov& eis). The former odv, however, is usually found disunited 
in the Codd., and by the authors themselves is sometimes separated 
by the interposition of a conjunction; see Jacobs, praef. Aelian. 
anim. p. 25. As for the rest, much must be left to the editor’s 
judgment in each particular instance. However, he could hardly 
find clear ground for writing dvamavtos, or even bmepeyw (2 Cor. 
xi. 25, Lchm.) and the like; although in general it must not be 
forgotten that in the language of the N. T., as closely approaching 
popular speech, orthographic combinations are especially frequent. 

In the editions of the N.T. the pronoun 6,ru was invariably so written” 
(with the hypodiastole), Luke x. 35; Jno. ii. 5; xiv. 18; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; 
etc., till Lchm., after Bekker, introduced 6 7 (as 6s tts, 7 Ts). Some 
think even this separation unnecessary (as Schneider, Plat. civ. I. praef. 
p. 48sq.); cf Jen. Lit. Z. 1809, IV. 174. The non-separation, besides 
other recommendations, has in its favor the consideration that an arbitrary 
exposition of the text is not forced upon the reader. (In the N. T. par- 
ticularly it has often been doubtful which of the two is to be read, as Jno. 
vill. 25; Acts ix. 27; 2 Cor. iii. 14.) Once, however, we decide between 
pron. and conj., it is safest to write 6 7c with a space, or even to retain the 
hypodiastole. » 

8. Crasis! occurs on the whole but seldom, and only in particular 
forms of frequent recurrence. In these, however, it is found almost 
without var. The most common instances are Kayo, Kav, Kakel, 
Kakelev, Kaxetvos, also camo, Luke i. 3; Acts viii. 19; 1 Cor. ii. 1; 
xv. 8; xapé, Jno. vii. 28; 1 Cor. xvi. 43 tovvavtiov, 2 Cor. i. T; 
Gal. ii. 7; 1 Pet. iii. 9; once rotvowa, Matt. xxvii. 57. On the® 
other hand, good Codd. have throughout ta avrd, Luke vi. 23 ; 
xvii. 30; 1 Thess. ii. 14. Instances like toutéo7., xabd, xabarep, 
are not properly called crasis. 

Contraction, where usual, is rarely neglected; cf. on do7ea, 
xetdéwv, voi, and the like $$ 8 and 9, besides édéero, Luke viii. 38, 
according to the best Codd., cf. Fr. de conform. crit. p. 82, as often 
in Xenoph. See Bttm. 11.150; Lob. 220. The verb cappveww ex- 
hibits a contraction of a peculiar sort; ef. Lob. 840. 

There is good authority for kai éxe?, Matt. v. 23; xxviii. 10; Mark i, 
39, 38; Kal éxetOev, Mark x. 1; xat éxetvots, Matt. xx. 4, ete. 

4. In the earlier editions of the N. T. the Iota subscript [?] was 
too frequently introduced. This abuse was first censured by 
Knapp. The iota must be decidedly rejected : 


1 Ahrens, de crasi et aphaeresi. Stollberg, 1845. 4to. 
[2 Cf. K. H. A. Lipsius, grammat. Unterss. iiber die biblische Gricitit. Leipz. 8vo. 


8.3 ff] 


oe 


: 


§5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. AT 


a. In cases of crasis with «aé when the first syllable of the 
second word does not contain an ez (as Kata from kai eita), there- 
fore in Kayo, Kdpoi, KaKelvos, Kav, KaKel, KaxeiHev, etc. See Hm. 
Vig. p. 526; Bttm. I. 114. The subs., however, is defended by 
Thiersch, Gr. § 38 note 1, and Poppo has retained it in Thucyd. 
after the best MSS. (Thue. II. I. p. 149). 

b. In the 2d perf. and Ist aor. act. of the verb aipw and its com- 
pounds, thus e.g. 7pxev Col. ii. 14; dpas Matt. xxiv. 17; dpov Matt. 
ix. 6; #pav Matt. xiv. 12; dpas 1 Cor. vi. 15, etc. See Bttm. I. 
413, 489; Poppo, Thue. II. I. 150. 

ec. In the Doric Inf., used also by the Attics (Mtth. I. 148), Sv, 

dupjy, mewhv, xpjoGar. According to ancient grammarians! (who 
flourished after Christ) the iota ought to be rejected also in con- 
tract verbs in dw; as ayaray, opav, Tyav, probably inasmuch as 
these forms arose from (the Doric) tiudev, like peoodv from 
picOoev ; see Wolf in the lit. Analekten 1 Bd. S. 419ff. Bengel 
favored this form, and it has been defended and followed by several 
scholars (Reiz, Lucian. IV. p. 8393 sq. ed. Bp.; Hlmsley, Kurip. 
Med. v. 69, and praef. ad Soph. Oedip. R. p. 9sq.; Hllendt, Arrian. 
Al. I. p. 14sq.). Bttm. I. 490, and Mtth. I. 4537, declare them- 
selves undecided, and many editors have retained the old mode of 
writing (as Lobeck, cf. his technol. p. 188). Schulz, Lehm. and 
Tdf., however, have rejected the « subs. from the N.'T.; cf. Eph. 
vy. 20; Rom. xiii. 8; Mark viii. 32; John xvi. 19. 
, d. There is nothing decisive for mpdaos (Lob. Phryn. 403; pathol. 
serm. gr. p. 442), yet see Bttm. I. 255. Neither has wpwi, from 
pb, aire subs.; see as to this word in general, Bttm. ad Plat. Crit. 
p. 48, and Lexilog. 17, 2. 

e. As to mavrn Acts xxiv. 3, see Bttm. II. 860. The ¢, which 
has a right to stand in addy, tavTy, as actual Datives, should be 
rejected in wavrn, which has no corresponding Nom. ‘The old 
grammarians, however, are of a different opinion (Lob. paralip. 
56 sq.), and Lehm. has printed wavtn. Also xcpup} (Dor. xcpuda) 
Eph. v. 12, cf. Xen. conv. 5, 8, and e/« (Bttm. I. 342) have been 
received into the N. T. text; cf. Poppo, Thue. II. 1.150. Lehm. 
still writes Ad@pa, though AdOpa is more correct; Schneider, Plat. 
civ. I. p. 61 praef. ; Ellendt, lex. Soph. II. p. 8sq. Lastly, 

f. Since Lchm. a@éov stands in the text of the N.T. Matt. 
xxvil. 4, 24 (d@iov, Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 1267), cf. also Weber, 


, 
1 Cf. Vig. p. 220. See also Gregor. Choerobose. Dictata ed. Gaisford, tom. II. p. 721. 


Yet see Hm. Vig. 748, 


60 


47 
ith ed. 


46 
Gth ed 


61 


48 
Téh ed. 


AT 
6th ed, 


48 § 5, ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 


Demosth. p. 231; but contrary to all tradition, Lob. pathol. graec. 
serm. p. 440.7 


After the example of Bekker and others, Lchm. began, in the larger 
edition of his N. T., to reject the breathings over double p as useless ; but 
he has found no followers [except Tdf. ed. vii.]. That the Romans also 
heard an aspiration in the middle of words is clear from the orthography 
of Pyrrhus, Tyrrhenus, etc. Bttm. I. S$. 28. Still less can one bring one’s 
self to omit the breathing also over p at the beginning of a word, as some 
do; see in opposition Rost, Gramm. S. 17 f. [or, as Lchm. does, to mark 
with a smooth breathing the first pin words the first two syllables of whiclt 
begin with p; see in opposition Gottling, Accentl. p. 205]. 

The Alexandrians (Sturz, dial. Alex. p. 116 sqq.) had, as it is admitted, 
their peculiar Greek orthography, which not only interchanged letters (as 
a. and e, € and y, cand «i, cf. eidéo Matt. xxvili. 8, y and x), but even 
added superfluous ones, to strengthen the forms of words; as, éxxGés, 
Bactréay, vixray, pbavvew, exxvvvopevov, ecorepe, dvaPaivvoy, nAdato (Acts 
xiv. 10; vii. 26; cf. Poppo, Thuc. I. 210). On the other hand, necessary 
letters (when doubled) they rejected ; as, duceBys, c¢Bact, dvrddaypa, ira, 
epvoaro, apados (Jno. xix. 23). They disregarded, too, the methods by 
which the Greeks avoided a harsh concurrence of many or of dissimilar 
consonants (Bttm. I. 75 ff); as, Ajpwoua, dvadnppGeis (Bttm. II. 231), 
TposwroAnpia, arektdvKact, €vywpLov, ovvKaAvppa, TvVpYTElY, TvVTVLyeELW, 
cvvpabyrys, tevret, ‘These peculiarities are found, partly in good MSS. of 
the Sept. and of the N. T. (Tdf. praef. ad N. T. p. 20 sq. [ed. vii. p. 46 sqq. ]) 
which are said to have been executed in Egypt, e.g. Cod. Alex., [ Cod. 
Sin. |, Cod. Vatic., Cod. Ephraem. (ed. Tdf. p. 21), Cod. Cantabr., Cod. 
Claromont. (Tdf. prolegg. ad cod. Clarom. p. 18), Cod. Cypr. (see Hug! 
Einleit. I. S$. 238, 242, 244, 245, 247, 249, 254; Scholz, curae crit. in hist. 
text. evangg. pp. 40, 61); partly in Coptic and Graeco-Coptic documents 
(see Hug. I. 239), with more or less uniformity. They cannot, therefore, 
be dismissed as but caprices of the copyists, as Planck thinks (de,orat. 
N.'T. indole, p. 25, note), especially as for many of them analogies can be 
adduced from the older dialects. At the same time, many of them are not 
specially Alexandrian, as the like occur in Codd. of Greek authors, and in 
Greek inscriptions, that cannot be traced to an Egyptian origin; as, e.g. 
e. for t, ey for ex, (on Arjpwopar cf. the Ion. Aduopar Mtth. 609) ; and, on 
the other hand, many Egyptian documents are tolerably free from the 
peculiarities in question. 

Lchm. and Tdf., on the concurrent testimony of good (but for the most 
part few) Codd. in Matt. xx. 10; xxi. 22; Mark xii. 40; Luke xx. 47; 


1The spelling @dv ( Wessel, Her. 2, 68), (gov, which Jacobs, in Aelian. animal., re- 
cently adopted on the authority of a good Cod., nobody will be disposed to introduce” 
into the N. T.; still less oggew. Cf. Lob. pathol. p. 442. 


§ 6. ACCENTUATION. 49 


Acts i. 2, 8, 11,22; Jas.i.7; Mark i. 27; 2 Cor. vii. 3; Phil. ii. 25, 
etc. (sometimes without giving authorities, Matt. xix. 29; John xvi. 14; 
i Cor. iii. 14; Phil. iii. 12; Rom. vi. 8, etc.), have received these forms 
into the text. Without more convincing proof, however, than what has 
been produced by Tdf. praef. ad. N.'T. p. 19 [ed. vii. p. 45] all the peculi- 
arities of the Alex. dialect, and in particular of the Alex. orthography, 
should not be attributed to Palestinean writers, (as John, Paul, James) ; 
and it is improbable that the N. T. writers should have followed that 
orthography only in comparatively few instances. Besides, Cod. B in 

_reference to this point has not yet been thoroughly collated. According 
to what Tdf. has said, as above, p. 21, he might have been expected to 
adopt such forms more frequently. 

The introduction, therefore, of this orthography into the text of the 
N. T.— if editors choose to imitate on such points the Codd., even in edi- 

' tions intended for general use —must undergo renewed and thorough 
consideration ; and at the same time the question may be raised, whether 62 
this orthography was not a mode of spelling adopted by the learned rather 49 
than the actual pronunciation of the people, somewhat as in Roman in- Tthed 
scriptions (Schneider, lat. Grammat. I. Il. 530 f, 543 f. 566 f. ete.) we 
find adferre, inlatus, and the like, written according to the etymology. 


§ 6. ACCENTUATION. [?] 


1. The accentuation of the text of the N. T. is to be regulated, 
not so much by the authority of the oldest accented Codd. [to which 
Lipsius, as above, has attached too much importance], as by the 

established tradition of the grammarians; though much still re- 

“mains doubtful, and, in the minute researches of later critics, 
attempts have sometimes been made to introduce subtilties. We 
select the following observations : 

a. According to the ancient grammarians (Moeris, p. 193), de 
should be written dé in Attic authors only, and ide in the remain- 
ing (later) writers ; just as A\afé and AdPe are distinguished, Weber, 
Demosth. p. 173, cf. Bttm. I. 448. Griesb. has so printed (except 
in Gal. v. 2), and Lchm. everywhere. According to Bornem.’s 
conjecture (Rosenmiiller, exeg. Repert. Il. 267), the word should 
be written é6é when it occurs as an Imper. followed by an Ace. 
(Rom. xi. 22), and ide when it is merely an exclamation. It is 
preferable, however, to follow the ancient grammarians. 


1 Of many words, as cvAAauBavew, svAAaAciv, TuuBovAtoy, cumminrew, no such form 
_at all has been observed ; of others, as cvAAéyew, cvyKadeiv, cvoTavpodv, eykadciv, only 
in single passages. 
[? Cf. Lipsius, gramm. Unterss. iib. d. bibl. Griicitit. S. 14 ff. S. 33 ff] 
7 


48 
6th ed. 


50 
ith ed. 


50 § 6. ACCENTUATION. 


b. Numerals compounded with éros should have the accent on 
the penult, according to the ancient grammarians (Thom. M. 859; 
Moschopul. in Sched.), when they are used of time; in every other 
case, on the last. Hence Acts vil. 23 rescapaxovtaétns ypovos, and 
Acts xill. 18 reccapaxovtaétn ypovov; on the other hand, éxatov- 
taeTns, Rom. iv. 19 (cf. Jacobs, Anthol. III. p. 251, 253). This 
distinction, however, is not observed in the MSS., and the whole 
rule is doubtful, see Lob. 406sq. Ammonius, p. 136, exactly re- 
verses the distinction ; see Bremi, Aeschin. Ctesiph. 369, ed. Goth. 

c. Some would have «ypvE and dotm£ accented «hpvé and hotvé 
(see Schif. Gnom. p. 215 sq. and Soph. Philoct. 562, cf. Ellendt, 
Lexic. Soph. 1. 956 sq.) on the ground that, according to ancient 
erammarians, the v and z (in the Nom. Sing.) were pronounced 
short (Bekker, Anecd. III. 1429). Hm., Soph. Oed. R. p. 145, 
rejects this as contrary toall analogy. Yet it is a question whether 
in later Greek the accentuation «jpv&, dot is not to be preferred 
with the grammarians ; see Bttm. I. 167. Lcehm. has followed it. 

d. For zods, as it stood in most of the older editions of the N. T., 
Knapp restored movs, because the Gen. has odds with short 0; 
see Lob. Phryn. 765, and paralip. 93. 

e. Griesb. and others lave incorrectly written AXaiAay ; it should 
be Aatvayy, as the a is short. In the same way, Schulz (though 
not invariably) and Lchm. write Orbis for Oris Cas Asus), 
because the first ¢ is long, not by position, but by nature. So 
KNipa, Kpiwa, xpliopa, plypya, Woxos (cf. Reisig, de constr. antistr. 
p- 20; Lob. paralip. 418), tdXos (Passow, under the word), (piwrus 
and) payav Luke iv. 85. However, it has been rightly remarked 
by Fr., Rom. I. 107, that as according to the testimony of the 
ancient grammarians (Lob. Phryn. 107; cf. Dindorf, praef. ad 
Aristoph. Acharn. p. 15) the later Greeks in many words shortened 
the penult which was long in Attic, this return to Attic accentua- 
tion in the N. T. is not so unquestionably warranted. No editor 
[except Tdf. ed. vii.] has changed the regular Opijcxos into @pncxes, 
though several Codd. so read ; see Bengel, app. crit. ad Jac. 1. 26. 

f. Since the termination az is considered as short in aecentuation 
(Bttm. 1.54),we must write @ywacar Luke i. 9, and xnpdfar Luke 
iv. 19; Acts x. 42, for Qvpuacae and xnpvéac (as still written by 
Knapp); ef. Poppo, Thue. IL. 1. 151; Bornem. schol. p. 4. Griesb. 
and Knapp, in Acts xii. 14, still write crroncously ésra@vat, as a is 
short. On the other hand cuvretptp@ar Mark v. 4 has already: 
been restored. 


§ 6, ACCENTUATION. 51 


g. In the older editions, even in Knapp’s, épi@eca is written 
épi0ea; but, as the word is derived from épifevw, the former ac- 
centuation is alone admissible; see Bttm. I. 141, Il. 401. So 
dpecxeia, since it comes from dpeoxevery and not apeoxew, must 
not be accented apéoxeca (as both Lehm. and Tdf. accent it). 

h. Lehm., agreeably to the undoubted analogy of yrworns, cda- 
orns, etc., changed xticT7 1 Pet.iv. 19 (Knapp and Griesb.) into 
xtiatn. But Schott and Wahl have retained «rior ; yet see Beng. 
appar. p. 442. 

i. As to wicOwtos see Schif. Dem. II. p. 88. The word dayos, 
Matt. xi. 19; Luke vii. 34, is so accented even in other books 
besides the N.T., Lob. Phryn. 434, though from analogy we 
should expect oe ie Lob. paralip. 185, who decides against Fr. 
Mr. p. 790 sqq. 

k. Lob. Phryn. 348, and Bttm. exc. I. ad Plat. Menon. hold 
that we should write efov 1st Aor. Imp. Acts xxviii. 26, and not 
elroy ; yet see reasons worthy of consideration on the other side 
by Wex, in the Jahrb. fur Philol. VI. 169. The former accentua- 
tion is limited to standard Attic. For eivov in the Greek Bible, 
see the express testimony of Charax in Bttm. as above, who calls 
the accentuation Syracusan. The later editors have also retained 
this form. See, besides, Bornem. Acta, p. 254 sq. 

1. Names of Persons, originally oxytone adjectives or appellatives, 
throw back the accent for the sake of distinction ;1 thus, Tuycxos 
not Tuyixos, “Ezraivetos not ’Emawerds (Lob. paral. 481), SiAnros 
‘not @iAnros (see Bengel app. crit. on the passage), "Epaoros not 
"Epactos, BXdotos not Bractos, Kapros not Kapzros, [Ivppos not 
IIuppos, “Eppoyéevns,|] Swcbévns ike Anuoo@évyns) and Avorpédys 
_8Jno.9. In the same way we write Tivev for Tiywav, ‘Ovnaidopos 
for “Ovnoidopos, Evpévns for Edperns. On the other hand ‘Tyévacos 
remains unaltered, as in general there is a reluctance to throw 
forward the accent in proper names. Hence even proparoxytones, 
as Tpodipos, “Aovyxpitos, [ Evrvyos] retain their accent, Lob. as 
above. Yet those former examples also occur exceptionally with 
their original accent in ancient grammarians and in good Codd. 
(ef. Tdf prolege. Cod. Clarom. p. 22; cf. also ®vAnros in Huseb. 
H. E. 6, 21, 2) ; and the name Xproros was never brought under 
the Be caing rule. See, generally, Reiz de incl. accent. p. 116; 
Schaf. Dion. H. p. 265; Funkhinel, Demosth. Androt. p. 108 sq. ; 


* 
1So also geographical names; see Nobbe, schedae Ptolem. II. (Lips. 1842. 8vo.) 
p- 17 sq. 


49 


Gih ed. 


64 


51 


Tth ed. 


65 


50 
6th ed. 


De 
7th ed. 


52 § 6. ACCENTUATION. 


particularly Lehrs, de Aristarchi studiis Homer. p. 276 sq. Cn 
the same way also ézréxewa, éritade, bmepéxeva were accented, 
when these forms, compounded of éz’ éxeiva, etc., were used as 
adverbs. ) 

m. Indeclinable oriental names are regularly accented on the 
last ; (cf. however, Iovéa, Odwap, ZopoPaPenr, "Iwdbap, ’Eneafap, 
and the segholate form ’HXwégep Luke ili. 29, “IeGaBer Rev. ii. 20 
according to good Codd., Ma@ovcada Luke iii. 87). The accent, 
even on long vowels, is for the most part the acute; as, Ioad«, 
"Iapanr, laxwB, Devvnoap, Bybcaida, Bnbecda, Eppaovs, Kadap- 
vaovw. On the other hand, the MSS. have Kava, TeBonpuavh 
(though there is more authority for De@onwave?, which Lehm. and 
Tdf. prefer ; see Fr. Mr. p. 626), also BnOgayh (cf. also Nwev). 
Names which occur as indeclinable and as oxytone, Josephus, with 
whom declension predominates, makes barytone ; as,’ A@éa (in the 
N.T.’Afid). The oldest MSS. are said (Tdf. prolege. p. 36 [ed. 
vii. p. 61]) to give Iidaros, not Iiaros, as it is usually written 
even by Lehm. (and by Cardwell in his ed. of Joseph. bell. jud.). 
Yet even recent editors, agreeably to the Codd., write Kopiordvos 
(Plutarch. Coriol. ¢. 11; Dion. H. 6, p. 414, Sylb.), Kexwvaros 
(Dion. H. 10, p. 650), Topxovatos (Plut. Fab. Max. c. 9; Dio C. 
34, c. 34), Kodpdtos (Quadratus) Joseph. antt. 20, 6, ’Ovopatos, 
etc. As to Tiros and Tiros see Sinten. Plut. vit. 1.190. For 
OArNE, not S7rAvE, see Bornem. Acta, p. 198. 


The accentuation ds.000s, éphy.os, érotwos, wOpos (Boisson. Anecd. V. p. 94), 
which grammarians (Greg. Cor. p. 12, 20 sqq.) refer to the Ionians and 
earlier Attics, and which Bekker for instance follows, is certainly inad- 
missible even in Attic prose (Poppo, Thue. I. 213. IJ. 1.150; Bttm. I. 55); 


still more so in the N.T. On the other hand, we must without doubt - 


invariably write tcos; cf. Bornem. Luke, p.4; Fr. Mr. p. 649. The N.T. 
MSS. have uniformly éow for eiow, though they have always eis and never 
és. Thuc., on the other hand, who mostly uses és, has eiow 1, 184; see 
Poppo, I. p.212. Recent editors reject éow in Attic prose; see Schneider, 
Plat. civ. I. praef. p. 53. (As to the poets, see Elmsley, Eurip. Med. p. 
84 sq. Lips.) As to whether we should write in Jas. i. 15 dzoxve? or 
azoxvet, see below, § 15 p. 88. 

In regard to the dim. rexviov as paroxytone, like reyviov in Athen. 2. 55, 
see Bttm. II. 441.; later editors, however, prefer réyvwov in Athen. and 
Plat. rep. 6.495 d. In the N. T. the only part of rexviov that occurs is 
the Plur. rexvia ; see Janson in Jahn’s Archiv VII. 487. Totumov (from 


. e a 
moyxeviov) should be unhesitatingly preferred to zouysviov, Janson as above, 


507. On dSporrs, Bpadurjs as oxytones, see Bttm. II. 417. This accord- 


§ 6. ACCENTUATION. 53 


ing to the grammarians is the old accentuation, an exception to the rule; 
~Lchm. has, on the other hand, éSpdéryre 2 Cor. viii. 20, but Bpadurjra 
2 Pet. iii. 9. The later Greeks seem to have pronounced these words 
regularly as paroxytones; Reiz, accent. inclin. p. 109. On ov«ovy and 
ovkovv, dpa and dpa, see § 57, 3, pp. 510, 512. 


2. Many forms, as is well known, of the same spelling but dif- 
fering in meaning, are distinguished from each other by the 
accents; as, equd swum and eius eo (uvprot ten thousand and pupios 
innumerable, Bttm. I. 278). The accented Codd. and even the 
editors of the N.T. sometimes waver betweén these two modes 
of accentuation. Thus for péves 1 Cor. ii. 14, Chrysost., Theod., 
Vulg., etc., read wevet (Fut.), which Knapp and Lehm. have ad- 
mitted into the text, cf. v.13; Heb. i.12. In Heb. iii. 16, there 
is more authority for tives than tuves, and accordingly recent 
critics have almost unanimously preferred the former. For @szepet 
T@ extpwpate 1 Cor. xv. 8, some Codd. have @szepet tw i.e. Tie 
extp@pyatt, Which Knapp has unnecessarily admitted into the text, 
Cit is clearly the correction of persons who took offence at the use 
of the article here, and besides, has but little authority in its favor); 66 
so in 1 Thess. iv. 6 év t@ mpdyparte, just as unnecessary. In 1 Cor. 
x/19, many recent editors write dru eidwAdOuTov Ti eat, 7) OTE 
eidSwdov Ti éotiv (Knapp and Mey.), because there is an emphasis 
on te (antithetic to ovdév), and the other accentuation e’dwAodutév 
te éotw (Lchm.) produces ambiguity, since this might signify : 
that there is anything offered to idols. Yet even supposing the 51 
former interpretation unquestionable, it is not necessary to reject Met 
the usual accentuation, in so far as it gives the sense: that an 
offering to idols is something (not only appears to be, but is in 
reality). Critics still contend about the accentuation of John 
Vil. 34, 36, ozrou eiul éy, Duets od Svvacbe ENOety oY Srrov Eis eyo, 
etc. (as several Fathers and versions read) ; and in Acts xix. 38 
almost all recent editors have accented dydpatoe (adj. signifying 
judicial) instead of dyopato.. With regard to the first of these 
passages, John’s use of language (xii. 26; xiv. 3; xvii. 24) gives 53 
the preference to eiué (see Liicke on the passage, after Knapp, “et 
comm. isagog. p. 32sq.); but in the second, the acute would 
probably be correct, if we listen to Suidas, and with Kulencamp 
read in Ammon. p. 4: dydpasos pév yap éoTwv 1) Hepa, yopaios de 
0 Eppiis 6 ert ris ayopas; cf. Lob. paralip. p. 340. 

In the same way we must decide on Rom. i. 30, where some 
taking the word as active accent it Qeoarvyeus, because Ocootvyets 


67 


py 
6th ed. 


54 


Tth ed. 


54. § 6. ACCENTUATION. 


must mean Deo exosi; but the analogy of adjectives like pyrpo. 
KTovos aud pytpoxtovos (Bttm. II. 482) proves nothing respecting 
adjectives in ns. Besides, Suidas says expressly that @eooruyeis 
means both of b7ro Geod picovpevor and of Geov pucodytes ; (though 
he distinguishes @eousojs from Oeouions in signification). The 
form Qeootvyets, Which alone is according to analogy, (compound 
adjectives in ms being oxytones,) is consequently the only correct 
form. As to the active sense of the word, however, Suidas does 
not appear to have quoted it as Greek usage, but only to have 


adopted it in the preceding passage of Paul. At least, this mean- 


ing of the word cannot be positively established from any Greek 
author; sce Fr. Rom. 1. 84sqq. To be sure, the word occurs but 
a few times in all. On the other hand, there is good ground for 
the distinction between tpoyos (wheel), which the text and the 
accented Codd. have in James iii. 6, and tpoyos (race), as accord- 
ing to Grotius, Hottinger, Schulthess, etc., it should be read (see 
Schif. Soph. IL 307). The figure tpoyos yevéerews (joined to 
proyifovca) is neither incorrect, nor in James particularly strange ; 
accordingly, no alteration of the accent is required. 

In regard to other passages where alterations of accent have been pro- 
posed, as 1 Cor. xiv. 7 (64s for dys), Col. i. 15 (azpwrordxos for mpwrd- 
toxos, see Mey.), or even James i. 17, tarnp tov duwrdv for dorwv, these 
proposals have originated partly in doctrinal prejudices, partly in ignorance 
of the language. The last is positively absurd. 

3. It is still an unsettled question whether in prose (for to poetry 
peculiar considerations apply, cf. e.g. Hllendt, Lexic. Soph. 1. 476) 
the enclitic forms of the pronoun, where no emphasis is intended, 
should be joined to a preposition: whether, for instance, we should 
write wapda cov, év jot, eis pe, and not mapa aod, év éuol, etc. In 
the editions of the N. T., even in Lehm.’s (and elsewhere also in 
Greek books), we constantly find pds je, mpos oe, but év col, év 
éwol, emi oé, ets eué, err éué, etc.; and only in connection with 
those enclitic forms in a few passages, Luke i. 43; Acts xxii. 8,13 ; 
Xxiii. 22; xxiv. 19; cf. Bornem. on the last passage, (mostly at 
the end of a sentence) from Cod. B and some others the orthotoned 
pronouns are noted as various readings. Partly on the authority 
of ancient grammarians, and partly for the reason laid down by 
Hm. emend. er. gr. I. 75 sq. that in such combinations the pronoun 
has the force of a noun, one must be disposed to decide generally 
for the orthotoned form; (only wpos we is defended by a portion 
of the grammarians, and occurs frequently in Codd.) see also Bttm. 


§ 7. PUNCTUATION. 55 


I. 285 f. ; Jacobs, Anthol. Pal. I. praef. p. 82; Mtth. Eurip. Orest. 
384, Sprachl. 1.110; Krii. 76; also Ellendt, Arrian. 1.199. Yet 
Reisig, conject. in Aristoph. p. 56, and Bornem. Xen. conviv. p.163, 
decide otherwise ; and it must be confessed that good MSS. of 
Greek authors (even besides the case of pos we) often have the 
enclitic forms. Where the pronoun is emphatic, the enclitic forms 
of course do not occur; accordingly Knapp and Schulz properly 
give Jno. xxi. 22, ré pos oé. 

In editions of the N. T. text, the enclitic forms are in general employed 
agreeably to the established rules of grammarians; hence even [’r., not- 
withstanding Hermann’s authority (emend. rat. I. 71, 73), still writes o 
mats pov (Matt. viii. 6), e€ tudv tives (Jno. vi. 64), td twwv (Luke ix. 7), 
and not mats pod, e€ tov twés, bird tTwov. Lchm.' began to accent the 
pronoun in the last two instances, and also to write zod eorw, Matt. ii. 2 ; 
per avrav éoriv, Mark ii. 19; but wats pov he left unchanged. He has 
been followed by Tdf. See, however, the judicious decision of Bttm. I. 65 f. 


§ 7. PUNCTUATION? 68 


1. In all editions of the N. T. down to that of Griesbach inclu- 
sive, the punctuation was not only deficient in consistency, but 
also suffered from the mistake that in order to facilitate the under- 
standing of the text editors punctuated too much, especially with 
commas. In this way, too, they forestalled the reader and imparted 
to the text their own exegetical views; cf. also Bttm. I. 68; 
Schleiermacher, Hermeneut. 8. 76. 

The first person who directed keener attention to punctuation, 53 
and attempted to reduce it to fixed principles, was Knapp. He ""* 
has been followed, and with additional restrictions, by Schulz, 
Lehm., and Tdf. (the last adhering mostly to Lchm.).? None of 
them, however, gave a general exposition of his principles.4 55 

Punctuation was originally contrived as an aid in reading, espe- he 
cially in reading aloud, by marking the various resting-places for 


1 Yet he (Lchm.) has printed in Acts xxvii. 44, éf rwwy; Jno. xx. 23, edy Tov. 

2 Cf. in particular Poppo, in the Allg. Lit. Zeit. 1826.1 B.S. 506 ff. ; Mith. I. 172 ff. ; 
[Zipsius, as above, S. 81 ff.]. 

8 Among the editors of Greek authors 7. Bekker has begun to punctuate with greater 
moderation and consistency, and VW. Dindorf still more sparingly. Both, however, 
seem to have carried the exclusion of the comma too far. 

* Rinck has proposed (Stud. u. Krit. 1842. 8. 554 f.) with regard to punctuation to 
return to the principles of the ancient Greek grammarians ( Villoison, Anced. IL. 138 sqq.). 
This, however, would be hardly practicable. 


69 


54 
Gth ed. 


56 
ith ed, 


56 § 7. PUNCTUATION. 


the voice. At present, however, independently of the circumstance 
that punctuation is indispensable in any extended system of vocal 
signs, its main object is to enable the reader in the act of reading 
to understand correctly, so far as this depends on perceiving the 
connection of the words (Bttm. as above). Punctuation therefore 
must be regulated by the logical, or rather — since the thought 
is clothed in language — by the grammatical and rhetorical, rela- 
tions of the words to each other. Hence it is too much to expect 
that the exegetical views of an editor should in no degree whatever 
be suggested by his punctuation, as he has to employ not merely 
commas, but colons and points of interrogation. 

As to the proper use of the colon and period in the text of the 


N. T. there can be no reasonable doubt; for, the omission of the » 


colon before the direct words of a speaker (Lchm. Tdf.) and the 
substitution of a capital letter, is an innovation for which there 
appears to be no sufficient ground. On the other hand, the pro- 
priety of inserting or not inserting a comma is more unceftain. 
Thus much, however, is clear, that only a grammatically complete 
proposition? having a close connection with another proposition 
should be separated from it by a comma; and that for this special 
purpose the comma was devised. But a grammatically complete 
proposition comprehends not only a subject, a predicate, and a 
copula, — three elements that may be either expressed or under- 
stood, — but all qualifying words also which are introduced to 
define these main elements more precisely, and without which the 
proposition would convey but an imperfect sense. Hence it was a 


mistake in Griesbach e.g. to separate the subject from the verb by , 


a comma whenever it was accompanied by a participle or consisted 
of a participle with adjuncts (Mark vil. 8; x. 49; Rom. viii. 6; 
1 Jno. ii. 4; iii. 15). It is a mistake to divide 1 Thess. iv. 9 qept 
dé THS Piraderdias, od ypelav ExeTe ypapew vptv, Matt. vi. 16 px) 
yiveobe, wsmep of trroxpitat (for py yiv. conveys by itself no idea), 
v. 32 ds dv amodtan tiv yuvatka abTov, TapeKTOs Noyou Tropveias 
(the last words contain the most essential part of the statement), 
xxii. 3 Kal drréotetre Tovs SovrAovs abTOD, Kadécat TOUS KEKANMEVOUS 


1A grammatical proposition usually coincides with a logical, but not always. In- 


Luke xii. 17, for instance, and in John vi. 29 (see above) we find, logically, two prop- 
ositions which, however, as the second is through the relative included in the first, form 
grammatically but one. The same remark applies to every condensed ' statement in 
which two clauses are contracted into one. Also in 1 Tim. vi. 3, e% tis ErepodiSackare? 
kal wh mposépxeTat bytatvovor Adyous, we have, logically considered, two propositions ; but 
grammatically, they appear in this construction as only one (see above, near the: close). 


§ 7. PUNCTUATION. 57 


ete., 1 Thess. iii. 9 riva yap edyapiotiav SuvapeOa TS Oe dvtarro- 
Sodvat TEpl bwav, ert Tan TH yapa etc., 1 Cor. vii. 1 Kadov avOparra, 
yuvatkos pn amtecOar, Acts v. 2 nal évoodicato amo Ths Tipijs, 
cuveduins Kal THS yvvackos. But the notion of a complete proposi- 
tion is still more comprehensive. Even a relative clause is to be 
considered as a part of the preceding proposition when the relative 
(pronoun or adverb) includes also the demonstrative, as Jno. vi. 29 
iva TiaTevonte els Ov amréoretArev exetvos, Matt. xxiv. 44 7) ov Soxetre 
@pa 6 vios Tod avOp. épyerat, Luke xii. 17 ore ovK Eyw rod cvvatw 
Tovs KapTrovs jou; or when there is an attraction of the relative, 
as Luke ii. 20 éml raow ois jxovoay (cf. Schaf. Demosth. II. 657) ; 
or when the relative clause is so necessary a complement to a 
foregoing word that both must be taken together to complete the 
sense, as Luke xii. 8 was 65 dv oworoyjon, Matt. xiii. 44 ravta dca 
éyes ; or when the preposition is not repeated before the relative, 
as Acts xiii. 39 amo mavtwr av ovk HdvvnOnTe etc., Luke i. 25.1 So 
where the subject, predicate, or copula of a clause consists of 
several words connected by cai (or ovdé), all these words must be 70 
regarded grammatically as a compound whole, though logically 
they may form several clauses ; as, Mark xiv. 22 XaBav 6 ’I. aprov 
evAoynoas éxNace Kal dwxev avtois, Jno. vi. 24 I. ove eotw éxel 
ovde of wabntai adtod, Matt. xiii. 6 )Alov dvatelXavTos éxavpaticbn 
kal dua TO pu Eyew pifav éEnpavOn (so correctly Lchm.), 1 Tim. 
vi. 3; Matt. vi. 26. (Otherwise in Mark xiv. 27 ratd&w tov Troméva, 
kal SiackopTria@ycetat Ta TpoBata, Matt. vii. 7 aire?re, cal SoPjcerae 
‘vpiv. The comma is here required, because two complete prop- 
ositions are connected by «ai. It is required also when two 
propositions are separated by 7}.). 

Further, the comma is to be omitted between such clauses as 
Luke xxiv. 18 od povos mapotxets ‘Iepouc. cai ovK éyvas etc., since 
they both belong together and must be read without a pause, for 
only in their connection do they convey the proper sense. Also 
Mark xv. 25 jw dpa tpitn Kat éota’pwoav adrov, and Matt. viii. 8 
OUK ei ixavos va jou WTO Ti atéyny eisédXOns, must be written 
Without punctuation. Finally, before ddd the comma can be 
properly omitted if the following clause is incomplete, and has, as 55 
it were, essential roots in the preceding; as, Rom. viii. 9 ipets dé het 
ovK éoTé év capKl add’ év Trredpart, and 4 Tots pr) KaTa GdpKa TEPL- HT 
TaTovow adda Kata tvedwa (where Fr. retains the comma). ith ed 

1'To omit the comma before every relative clause (as e.g. Bekker does in his edition 


of Plato), seems to me to be going too far. 
8 


71 


58 § 7. PUNCTUATION. 


2. On the other hand, we must not include too much in a gram- 
matically complete proposition, and so omit commas where they 
are necessary. Hence we remark: 

a. The Vocative is never a constituent part of the proposition 
with which it stands connected, but is to be regarded as its prelude, 
particularly when the proposition is in the first or third person. 
Hence we punctuate in Jno. ix. 2 paBBi, tis Ruaprev, Mark xiv. 36 
aBRBa o TaTHp, Tavta dvvara cot, 2 Pet. iii. 1; Luke xv.18; xviii. 
11, etc. | 

b. A comma is properly put after a word which is the subject 
of a clause immediately following, beginning with a conjunction, 
and also of the principal clause; as, Jno. vii. 31 0 Xpicros, orav 
€XOn, ..... Townoet. Lelm. otherwise. 

c. If a grammatically complete clause be followed by a supple- 
mentary statement which might properly form a clause of itself, 
they must be separated by a comma; as, Rom. xii. 1 wapaxare 
twas Tapacthca Ta coOpata buav Ovoliav Gaoav ..... TO Oe@d, THY 
AoyiKnv NaTpelav (1.€. ris Eat 7 Noy. rA.), 1 Tim. il. 6 6 dods éav- 
TOV GVTINUTPOV UTEP TAVTWV, TO MapTUpLOV KaLpots Ldlois. So also in 
the case of participles, etc.; as, Col. ii. 2 wa mapak. at Kapdiat 
abTav, cupPiBacbévtes ev ayarn, Jno. ix. 13 ayovow avtov mpos 
tovs Papicaiovs, Tov Tote TUPAOv, Rom. vill. 4 twa To Sixaiwmpa Tod 
vopov TANpwOH ev nuiv, Tois wy KATA TdpKa TepiTaTodeL etc., Verse 
20; Eph. i. 12. 

d. When a single (logical) proposition contains a twofold con- 
struction (e.g. an anacoluthon), it must be written with a comma 
and read with a pause between the two parts; as, Jno. xv. 2 map 
KARpa év ol 2) pépov Kaptrov, alper avto. By the addition of avr 
the words wav KAjwa..... kap7. become a casus pendens which 
is only the prelude to the proposition, and hence no one reads on 
without a pause. Rev. ili. 12 6 wxev, roucw adtov atvdXor ete. 
Heb. ix. 23 dvaynn Ta pev brrobelypwata TOY ev Tois Ovpavois, TOVTOLS 
kalapifecPat. It is quite obvious that inserted complete clauses 
must be separated from the principal clause by commas, Luke ix. 
28; Acts v. 7, and elsewhere. 

e. If a sentence contains dcvvdétws (without cai) several words 
following one another in the same construction, or simply enumer- 
ated in succession, they must be separated from each other by 
commas; as, 1 Pet. v.10 adtos xataptice, otnpiger, cOevacet, 
Oepertooer; Luke xiii. 14 azroxpibels O€ 0 apyiovvaywyos, cyavaKTov 
OTL.....0 Inoods, Ereye. 


§ 7. PUNCTUATION. 59 


If the use of the comma in all the cases specified be well founded, a 
subordinate point, a half comma, would be desirable, to separate to the 
eye those words which in a continuous proposition, though they do not 
form, so to speak, a grammatical group, the reader might easily construe 
together. Thus, for instance, every one in reading Luke xvi. 10 6 mtords 
ev eAaxiotw Kal év TOAA® TioTds éore Will be apt to go wrong, as Kat excites 
the expectation of a second expression co-ordinate with murros év €X. The 
same holds true of the following passages: Rom. iv. 14 ei yap ot €« vopov 
KAypovopo., Jas. v. 12 nrw dé iuav 7d vai vai Kal To ov ov», 1 Cor. xv. 47 6 
mpatos avOpuos éx yns xoikds, Heb. v. 12 dgetdovres eivar duddcKador dd. Tov 
xXpovov madw xpetav exere Tod didaoKkew duds, Ino. v. d pv tis avOpwros éxet 
TpidkovTa Kal 6xTw ern éywv ev TH doOeveia, Rom. iil. 9 r¢ obv ; rpoexopeba ; 

ov TavTws (ov, tévTws). A half comma would at once remove all ambiguity. 
' As, however, no such point exists, we might employ an ordinary comma, 
just as it is used in writing and print to distinguish 6,7c from 67. Modern 
editors, however, do not punctuate at all in these passages, and this is 
perhaps most advisable. 


8. It is on many accounts desirable that an editor’s exposition 
of a passage should not be introduced into the text by means of 
punctuation. This is easily avoided where punctuation is unnec- 
essary, as for instance in Rom. i. 17; vii. 21; Matt. xi. 11. But 
there are passages where punctuation —a period, a colon, a comma, 
or even a mark of interrogation—is indispensable, and yet cannot 
be employed without thereby adopting some distinct exposition of 
the text. In Jno. vii. 21, for instance, every editor must deter- 
mine whether to prefer év &pyov érroinca kal ravtes Oavpatere. dia 
tovTo Mwons dédwxev tuiv repitouny ete., with Chrysost., Cyril, 
Euthym. Zigab., etc., or év épyov .... . Oavuatete dia TodTo. Mwors 
ete., with Theophyl. and nearly all modern editors and expositors. 
The former punctuation may still be defended, not indeed on the 
ground that John (as Schulz has shown) usually begins but never 
ends a clause with dua todro, but if the connection is understood 
thus: I have done one work, and ye are all surprised; therefore 
(be it known to you) Moses gave you, etc.; i.e. I will remove your 
surprise. Ye yourselves, according to the law of Moses, perform 
circumcision on the Sabbath. If, now, that ceremony, extending 
to but one part of the body, is not a desecration of the Sabbath, 
then the healing, affecting as it @oes the entire man, will certainly 
be allowable also. I acknowledge, however, that the usual punc- 
tuation produces a far more simple explanation of the passage, as 
Liicke also has shown. Heb. xi. 1 may be punctuated éo7e dé 
Tiotls, ekmifouévov vroctacts etc., so that the emphasis fall on 


Be 


ith ed. 
516) 
6th ed, 


> 


59 
ith ed. 


57 
Oth ed. 


73 


60 §8. RARE FORMS OF FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS. 


éor, and thus the existence of faith, in the manner indicated by 
the words in apposition, is historically proved. However, it now 
appears to me more proper to omit the comma after mlotis, so 
that a definition of faith is given, the correctness of which is then 
illustrated by the succeeding historical examples; see Bleek on the 
passage. In punctuating Jno. xiv. 30 sq. expositors vary between 


év éuol ovK exer ovdev, GAN ta..... Tow. eyeipecOe and ovdévs 
GAL Baten Tow, éyelpecVe ; and in punctuating, if the text of 


the N.T. is to be punctuated at all, it will not be possible to 
evade this difference. Compare further, Rom. iii. 9; v.16; vi. 21; 
vill. 388; ix. 5; xi. 381;, Cor, 1,18; vi. 43 xvi. Sia 
(see Kiihnol) ; Heb. iii. 2; Jas. ii. 1, 4, 18; v. 3 sq. 

The same reason, viz. to avoid prejudicing the reader in advance in 
favor of any one interpretation, may have been the chief motive with recent 
editors (Tdf.) for excluding from the text altogether the parenthesis, for- 


merly the source of so much abuse. Lchm. had still retained it. See 
below, § 62. j 


§ 8. RARE FORMS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS. 


1. Masculine proper names in as of the 1st Decl. — mostly ori- 
ental, but formed in accordance with well-known Greek analogy — 
end in the Gen. Sing. uniformly in @; as, “Iwavva Luke iii. 27, 
Tova Matt. xii. 89; Jno.i. 43, ete. Krad Jno. xix. 25, Jrehava 
1 Cor. i. 16; xvi. 15, Seva Acts xix. 14, Knda 1 Cor. 1.12, Xarava 
Mark i. 18; 2 Thess. ii. 9, “Evradpa@ Col. i. 7. 

Likewise those ending in unaccented as make the Gen. in a; 
as, Kaidda Jno. xviii. 13, "Avva Luke iii. 2, “Apera 2 Cor. xi. 82 
(Joseph. antiqq. 17, 3,2; 18,5, 1), Bapvafa Gal. ii. 1; Col. iv. 
10, "Aypirma? Acts xxv. 23; cf. Joseph. antiqq. 16, 2,3; 16, 6,7; 
20, 7, 1, etc. (Sida Joseph. vit. 17, Mar@eta Acta apocr. p. 133), 
*Iovéa often. 

The same form in proper names is often used by Attic authors ; 
as, Macna Xen. An. 1, 5, 4, PwBpva Xen. C.5,2,14, Kowata Theocr. 
5, 150a., cf. Georgi, Hierocr. I. 156; Kri. 42; Ellendt, Arrian. 
Al. I. 83; V. Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 566; and on Boppa, Luke 
xiii. 29, Rev. xxi. 13, especially Bit. I.147,199; Bekker, Anecd. 
III. 1186. 

1 So also Owua in the Act. Thom., Aovea Euseb. H. E. 3, 24, ‘Epua Euseb. 3, 8. 

2 On the other hand, we find occasionally ’Aypimmov in Joseph. (antt. 18, 7, 1 and 2; 


18, 8, 8, ete.) and Euseb. H. E. 2,19. Codd. of Xenoph. also vary between. PwBptov 
and TwBpva. 


§ 8. RARE FORMS OF FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS. 6] 


On the other hand, those in as pure have the usual Attic form 
(e.g. Aivelas) in ov (Lob. prolegg. pathol. p.487 sqq.) ; as, Avdpéov 
Mark i. 29; Jno. i. 45 (Joseph. antiqq. 12, 2,3; Acta apocr. p. 158, 
159), Hriov Luke i. 17; iv. 25, ‘Hoaiov Matt. iii. 3; xiii. 14; Acts 60 
xxviii. 25 and elsewhere, ‘Jepewiov Matt. ii. 17; xxvii. 9, Zayapdov Me 
Matt. xxiii. 35; Luke i. 40 and elsewhere, Avoaviov Luke iii. 1, 
Bapayiov Matt. xxiii. 35. So always in Joseph. ’Ovias, ’Oviov ; in 
other places TwB8iov (Geo. Syncell. chronogr. p. 164; but usually 58 
TwBia). See, in general, Geo. Choerobosci dictata in Theodosii 
canon. ed. Gaisford, I. p. 42. 


Several names of places that might have been declined according to the 
1st Decl. are indeclinable in the N. T.; as, Kava (Dat. Jno. ii. 1, 11; Ace. 
iv. 46), Byfoaida, ByPpayy, Todryob4, “Papa. ByfaBapa Jno. i. 28 would 
not come under this head, since Origen uses it as a Neut. Plur.; recent 
editors have printed év ByGavia. Avdda is unquestionably inflected as 74 
feminine in Acts ix. 38 (Avéddys), on the other hand in vs. 32 and 35 Avd3sa 
as Neut. Acc. has respectable Codd. in its favor; cf. my RW. II. 30. 

Words in apxos' commonly follow in the N.'T. and later Greek the first 
declension, and end in apyys;” as, tatpidpyns Heb. vii. 4, Plur. Acts vii. 8, 
9, coll. 1 Chron. xxvii. 22, rerpapyns Matt. xiv. 1; Luke iii. 19; ix. 7, 
coll. Joseph. antiqq. 18, 7, 1, rerpdpyar Euseb. H. E. 1, 7, 4; zodurdpyns 
Acts xvii. 6; eOvapyns 2 Cor. xi. 32, coll. 1 Mace. xiv. 47, e@vapyn 1 Mace. 
xy. 1, 2, €6vapynv Joseph. antiqq. 17, 11, 4, é@vapyxas Euseb. Const. 1, 8; 
dowdpyns, hence dovapyov Acts xix. 31, and dowpyynv Euseb. H. E. 4, 15, 
11 (Asiarcha, Cod. Theodos. 15, 92) ; éxarovrapyns Acts x. 1, 22; xxi. 32; 
xxii. 26, coll. Joseph. b. j. 3, 6, 2, exarovrapyn Acts xxiv. 23; xxyii. 31; 
- Matt. viii. 13 where, however, a few Codd. have ékarovrdpyw, just as in 
Joseph. b. j. 2, 4. 3, €xarévrapyov is found besides éxarovrdpynv. On the 
other hand, éxardvrapyos occurs almost without var. in the following pas- 
sages: Matt. viii.5, 8; Luke vii. 6; Acts xxii. 25; (the Gen. Sing. Luke 
vii. 2, and Plur. Acts xxiii. 23, the former with the same accent and the 
latter with a circumflex on the last, may be cases of éxarovrdpyns also). 


1 The MSS. even of ancient Greek authors vary, indeed, between apxos and apxns, 
but later critics, in them, give the form apyos the preference ; cf. Bornem. Xen. cony. 1, 4; 
Poppo, Xen. Cyrop. 2, 1, 22, p. 109. This also corresponds best with the etymology 
(from apxés). So rémapxos, Aeschyl. Choéph. 662. Tvuvacidpyns, however, is un- 
doubtedly the correct reading in Aeschin. Tim. ed. Bremi I. 23. 

2 That this was the predominant termination in the Apostolic age appears further 
from the circumstance that the Romans in rendering such words into Latin gave to 
them this or a similar form, when they might just as well have chosen the form in archus. 
Hence Tetrarches, Hirt. bell. Alex. c.67 ; Liv. epitom. 94; Horat. serm. 1, 3, 12; Lucan. 
7,227; Alabarches, Cic. Attic. 2,17; Juven. Satir. 1,130; Toparcha, Spartian. in Ha- 
drian.13; Patriarcha, Tertull. de anim. ¢.7, 55, and elsewhere. Cf. Schdf. Demosth. II. 
151. Byzantine authors still more fully attest the predominance of this form. 


61 
Tth ed. 


59 
6th ed. 


~l 


62. § 8. RARE FORMS OF FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS. 


Finally, for ortparoreddépyy Acts xxviii. 16 (Const. Man. 4412, etc.) the 
better Codd. have orparoreddpxw. Elsewhere, besides, in the Greek Bible 
and in authors of the first Christian centuries we find the following vouchers 
for the form apyns: yeveoudpyns Wisd. xiii. 8, kowapyxns Esth. ii. 3, xumpiapyys — 
2 Macc. xii. 2, rorapyns Gen. xli. 84; Dan. iii. 2, 3; vi. 7; Euseb. H. E. 
1,13, 3, @cacdpyyns Lucian. peregr. 11, pepapyns Arrian. Tact. p. 80, paday- 
yépxys ibid. p. 80, «iAdpyns ibid. p. 50, éXehavrapyyns 2 Mace. xiv. 12; 
3 Mace. v. 4, 45, dAaBdpxys Joseph. antiqq. 19, 5, 1, yevépyns Lycophr. 1307; 
Joseph. antiqq. 1, 13, 4, ragiépyns Arrian. Al. 2, 16, 11; Euseb. Constant. 
4, 63 (though ibid. 4, 51 and 68 also ta&iapyxos ; see Heinichen, index p. 585), 
iAdpyns Arrian. Alex. 1, 12,115 2, 7,5, cvpudpyns Acta apocr. p. 52, vowapyns 
Papyr. Taur. p. 24, yecrovidpxys Boisson. Anecd. V. 73. To quote from 
the Byzantine writers all the compounds of this kind would be endless ; 
examples occur in almost every page. Of other compounds the form in 
apxos is exclusively used in the N. T.; as, xiAdapxos in all passages (22). 
On the other hand see yAvapyys in Arrian. Al. 1, 22,9; 7, 25, 11 (Ellendt, 
Arrian. II. 267), besides in Sept. Ex. xviii. 11, 25 ; Deut. 1.15; Num.i. 16, 
where we find also dexadapyos (dexadapyar Arrian. Tact. p. 98). In the 
Byzantines xévrapyos Cedren. 1, 705, 708, vuxrérapxos Leo Diac. 6, 2, must 
be considered as isolated instances. 

Dialectic inflection in the 1st Decl. occurs in Acts x. 1; xxi. 81 ; xxvii. 1, 
where we find the Ionic form ozetpys from ovzetpa, only in the first passage 
with some var. in the Codd. (cf. Arrian. acies contra Alanos, pp. 99, 100, 
102) ; and in good Codd. we find payxaipys Rev. xiii. 14; Heb. xi. 84, 37, 
and paxaipn Rev. xiii.10; Luke xxii. 49; Acts xii. 2 (cf. Ex. xv. 9) [like- 
wise zpapys Acts xxvii. 80 in A and Sin., which Lchm. has adopted]; ef. 
also Sardeipy Acts vy. 1 (Lchm. ardeipa), and ovvedvins v. 2, according 
to good Codd. See Mtth. I. 183. 

2. In the Second Declension the following forms occur: 

a. Arod\rw in Acc. Sing. for “AvoAX\wv from ’ArroAd@s (Acts 
xviii. 24) Acts xix. 1; 1 Cor. iv. 6 (the Gen. regularly ’AzoArA® 
1 Cor. iii, 4; xvi. 12); ef. Bttm. I. 155,199. Good Codd. (Bttm! 
I. 155; Krii. 45) have Acts xxi. 1 77 Ko (1 Mace. xv. 23; Joseph. 
antiqq. 14, 7, 2), where the usual form 77v Koy has but little 
authority. However, together with Kos, Ko is found as indeclin- 
able in Strabo 10, 489; ef. further, Duker, Thue. 8, 41. 

b. Not, as Dat. (after the 8d Decl.) of vods, 1 Cor. i. 10; xiv. 
15; Rom. vii. 25; and vods as Gen. for vod, 1 Cor. xiv.19. Greek 
authors, instead of vol, usually employ vow, or contr. vo. Noi 
occurs besides only in Simplic. ad Aristot. phys. 81, 25; Philo I. 
63 (Bekker, Anecd. III. p. 1196), the Byzantines (e.g. Malalas, see 
index in Bonn ed. Theophan. 28), and the Fathers; see Lob. 
Phryn. 458; Boissonade, Marin. p. 938sq. Likewise wdods Acts 


§ 8. RARE FORMS OF FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS. (63 


xxvii. 9, as Gen. (for 70d), as in Arrian. peripl. p. 176; Malalas, — 
5, p. 94; Cinnam. p. 86; cf. Lob. as above. 

ce. The Vocative Océ Matt. xxvii. 46 without var. (Judg. xxi. 3; 
Wisd. ix.1; Acta Thom. 25, 45,57; Tiuodee 1 Tim. i. 18; vi. 20), 
of which scarcely an instance is to be found in Greek authors ; cf. 
Bttm. 1. 151. Even the Sept. has usually Voc. @eds. 

d. We find the Plur. of dcréov without contraction dcréa Luke ¢9 
xxiv. 39, and ootéwy Matt. xxiii. 27; Heb. xi. 22, and elsewhere. ithe. 
The latter, however, occurs not very unfrequently in Greek prose: 
Lucian. necyom. 15; Plat. Locr. 102 d. (cf. besides, Eurip. Orest. 
404; Troad. 1177). ’Ooréa is more rare; cf. Plat. Locr. 100 b. ; 
Aristot. anim. 3, 7; Menand. ed. Meineke, p. Ie 


As Metaplasms we must notice: 

1. “O decpuos Plur. ra Seopa Luke viii. 29; Acts xvi. 26; xx. 23, only 60 
once of decjoé Phil. i. 13, everywhere without var. In Greek authors, filed 
too, Secpoé is more rare than Secpd Thom. Mag. p. 204 (Bttm. I. 210; cf. 76 
Kiihnél, ad Act. p. 558). } 

2. From odfParov we find only Gen. Sing. and Plur. and Dat. Sing,,’ 
but the Dat. Plur. ca8Bacr (which occurs also in Meleag. 83, 4) comes, 
according to Passow, from a Sing. c¢B8Bar, Gen. cdf Paros. 

3. The Mase. otros has in the Plur. (besides otrot) cira Acts vil. 12 var., 

as often in Greek writers. (A Sing. otrov was never in use; see Schiift 
Soph. Elect. 1366.) The best Codd., however, [Sin. also] give in Acts 
vii. 12 oiria, which has now been received into the text. 

In regard to gender be it observed: 

1. Ayos in Luke xy. 14; Acts xi. 28, according to some good Codd. 
(also according to a very few authorities in Luke iv. 25), is construed as 
Fem., agreeably to the Dorie dialect (Lob. 188); cf. Malalas 3, p. 60. 
See Bornem. ad Acta, as above. 

2. Baros is Mase. in Mark xii. 26 (though not without var.), and Fem. 
in Luke xx. 37; Acts vii. 85, (Fr. Mr. p. 532). Compare in general, 
Lob. paralip. 174 sq. (9) rnAds Const. Man. 2239, 2764, etc.). 

8. Instead of 6 varos, the later form, some Codd. in Rom. xi. 10 have 76 
vorov, the form used by the earlier writers ; see Ir. on the passage. 


1 We find in the Sept. the Dat. Plur. also of this form, caBBdros 1 Chron. xxiii. 31 ; 
2 Chron. ii. 4; viii. 13; Ezek. xlvi. 3, as well as in Joseph. antt. 16, 6, 4, together with 
odBBact. In the N. T. it occasionally appears among the var. as in Matt. xii. 1, 12, 
according to good Codd. 


TT 


63 
7th ed. 


61 
6th ed, 


64 §9, RARE FORMS OF THE THIRD DECLENSION. 


§9. RARE FORMS OF THE THIRD DECLENSION. 


Among these belong, 1. In the Singular: 

a. The Genitive 2uicovs Mark vi. 23, from the Neut. jyucv Cused 
as a substantive), instead of the usual form 2udoeos ; cf. Dio Chr. 
1, 99; Schwartz, comment. p. 652; Bttm. 1. 191. | 

b. The Dative yjpes (Ionic), for yjpet Luke i. 86 (as ovde from 
ovdos in Homer), for which the text. recept. has yea; cf. Ps. 
xci. 15; Sir. viii. 6; Theophan. p. 86, and the Fathers, e.g. Theo- 
doret. in Ps. exix. (ed. Hal. 1.1393); Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 630, 
T47 ; Boissonadg, Anecd. III. 19. 

c. The ee vy Jno. v. 11,15; Tit. ii. 8 (Lev. xiii. 15.). 
The Attic authors use another contraction, tya, but the former 
occurs also in Plat. Phaed. 89d., and similar forms in other passages 
(Mith. I. 288). 

d. ’Apréwwv, Acts xxvii. 40, has, according to A [Sin.] and sev- 
eral other Codd., épréw@va, which Lchm. has adopted (cf. yAjyeove 
Homer. Cerer. 209), as also Lob. Soph. Ai. p. 171, in preference 
to the usual form aptéwova: appellativi declinatio sine dubio eadem 
quae proprii (Anacr. fragm. 27, and Fischer’s note). 

2. In the Plural: 

a. The Accusative in es (instead of éas) from Nom. Sing. in evs, 
e.g. yovels, Matt. x. 21; Luke il. 27; ypauparets, Matt. xxiii. 34, 
etc. So also in Attic writers ; e.g. Xen. (see Poppo, Cyrop. p. 32 
sq.; Weber, Dem. p.492 and 513), though the Atticists reject it ; 
see Mtth. I. 235. 

b. The Dative of the Numeral évoiv (Thom. M. 253), Matt. 
xxii. 40; Luke xvi. 13; Acts xii. 6, follows wholly the analogy 
of the 8d Decl. It occurs also in Thue. 8, 101 (Cdvolv mpépais), 
in Plutarch, Aristotle, Hippocrates, and others, instead of the 
usual dvoty; see Lob. 210 sq.; Bttm. 1. 276. In the Genitive, dvo 
is always indeclinable; Matt. xx. 24; xxi. 31; Jno.i.41; 1 Tim. 
v. 19, etc., as sometimes in Greek authors, e.g. Lucian. dial. mort. 
4,1; Aesop. 145, 1. (Mtth. I. 887). 

ec. As uncontracted forms appear—contrary to the general 
usage — dpéwv Rev. vi. 15 (Hzek. xi. 10; 1 Kings xx. 28; Isa. 
xiii. 4, etc.), and yesAewy Heb. xiii. 15 (Prov. xii. 14; xxxi. 31; 
Wisd. i. 6; Ecclus. xxii. 25, etc.), the other cases being declined 
regularly. Such genitives, however, are not unfrequent even in 


Greek prose; cf. Georgi, Hierocr. I. 145 ; Poppo, Xen. C. p. 213; 


§ 9. RARE FORMS OF THE THIRD DECLENSION. 65 


Jacobs, Achill. Tat. 2,1. As to the poets, see Hllendt, Lexic. 
Soph. II. pp. x. xii. 

d. The contraction of the Neut. 7u/on Luke xix. 8 (as a sub- 
stantive, cf. Theophr. ch. 11), to which applies what we have said 
above of #icovs. The usual form is 7u/cea (which is the reading 
here in some Codd. ; Tdf., however, has 7uceva from B L [Sin.], 
ef. Bttm. I. 248); cf. Fischer, prol. p. 667; Bttm. I. 191. 

e. The contracted Gen. rnyav Jno. xxi. 8; Rev. xxi. 17, in- 
stead of mnyéwv (as the Cod. Al. has in the first passage [and Cod. 
Sin. in the last]). IInyv is a later form (see Lob. p. 246), yet 
it occurs in Xen. An. 4, 7, 16, and frequently in Plutarch. 


From xAc’s we have the more common form xA¢tda Luke xi. 52 and in 

afew Codd. Rey. iii. 7; xx. 1 (frequently in Sept. Judg. iii. 25 ; Isa. xxii. 22) 
for (the Attic) xAev (Thom. M. p. 536; Lob. 460). Yet in the Plur. 
kAetdas, Matt. xvi. 19, has more authority than «Acts, which, on the other 
hand, in Rev. i. 18 is the best attested reading. Just so epides 1 Cor. i. 11 
and épeis (as Nom. and Acc.) 2 Cor. xii. 20, occur; in Gal. v. 20, however, 
the correct reading is probably épis. Kpéas has the regular Plur. contrac- 78 
tion (Bttm. I. 196), xpéa, Rom. xiv. 21; 1 Cor. viii. 15 (Exod. xvi. 8, 12), 
as in Xen. C. 1, 3, 6; 2, 2,2. On the other hand, xépas has xépata Rev. 
v. 6; xiii. 1, 11; xvii. 12 (Amos iii. 14), xepdérwy Rev. ix. 13; xiii. 1 (1 Kings 
i. 50; ii. 29), and never the contracted xépa, xepdv (Bttm. I. as above ; 
Bekker, Anecd. III. p. 1001). Lastly, répas has always répara Matt. 
xxiv. 24; Acts ii. 43; v.12; Jno. iv. 48; repadrwv, Rom. xv. 19, instead 
of répa, tepdv, the forms which pass for Attic; see Moeris, p. 339; Bttm. 
as above. 

Note 1. In 1 Thess. vy. 3 (Isa. xxxvii. 3) we find dd for ddis, Nom. 64 
Sing. of ddives, like SeAp/v in later writers not unfrequent, see Bttm. I. 162 Tthed. 
(cf. also xAediv Const. Porph. 14, 208). 

Note 2. In several passages in good MSS. zAotros, contrary to general 
usage, is used as Neuter, Eph. ii. 7; iii. 8,16; Phil. iv. 19; Col. ii. 2 
(Acta apocr. p. 76), a peculiarity probably originating in the language of 
the people, as the modern Greeks use indiscriminately both 7d Aodros and 
6 mAovros, see Coray, Plutarch. vit. I. p. 58; Isocr. II. 103, 106. In the 
same way we find 70 GjAos 2 Cor. ix. 2 in Codd. B [and Sin.]; Phil. iii. 6 
in A B [Sin.] (Clem. ep. p. 17 Ittig.) and perhaps 76 70s Luke xxi. 25, 

(if the Gen. be accented jyovs, as it is by Lchm.), according to good Codd., 62 
as Malal. p. 121, 436. Compare in later writers, 76 x«Addos Theophan. bthed. 
contin. ed. Bekker, p. 222; see, in general, Benseler, Isocr. Areopag. p. 
106. On the other hand, we find in later writers 6 detrvos Luke xiv. 16 
B D; see Hase, ad Leon. Diac. p. 239 ; Schiif. ind. Aesop. pp. 128, 163 ; 
Boisson. Herod. Epim. p. 22, and Anecd.I. 51; and 6 retxos Ducas p. 266 
Bonn.; Acta apocr. p. 84.. The heteroclite oxdéros (Poppo, Thue. I. 225) 
9 


66 § 10. FOREIGN AND INDECLINABLE WORDS. 


is found only once as Masc. (Heb. xii. 18 oxdtw, but not certain), else 
always Neut.:(oxérovs, oxdrer) without a single var. noted. As to €Xeos, 
which the Sept. sometimes use as Mase. (so too Philo I. 284), in N.'T. 
MSS. the Neut. predominates (var. only Matt. ix. 13; xii. 7; xxiii. 23; 
Tit. 11.5; Heb. iv. 16). @duBos has, Acts iii. 10, Gen. OduBov in C. 
Note 3. The MSS. have several instances of v subjoined to the Acc. 
Sing. in a or 7 (€Ariday, ovyyevny, cf. Sturz, dial. alex. p. 127; Lob. paralip. 
p: 142), as Matt. ii. 10 dorépav, Codd. [Sin™ and] Ephr. Jno. xx. 25, yeipav 
Cod. Alex., and in same Cod. Rey. xii. 15 dpoevay, xiii. 14 eixdvav, xxii. 2 
pnvav, Acts xiv. 12 Aiav according to several Codd., and Rom. xvi. 11 
ovyyenv, Heb. vi. 19 acgadjy (this also in Codd. Ephr. and Cantab.) ; Rev. 
i. 13 zodnpyv. Likewise in the Byzantine writers we find similar forms 
(see Index to Leo Grammat. p. 532; Boisson. anecd. V. 102), as also in 
the Apocr. (Tdf. de evang. apocr. p. 187), and in Rev. Lchm. has received 
into the text the forms quoted above. ‘This subjoined v is probably not 
to be considered, with Ross, as an original termination (transmitted in the 
popular speech), but as an arbitrary extension of the v usual in the Acc. 
of many sorts of words (Mtth. 208), Lob. paralip. as above. In adjectives 
of two terminations in ys, this form is said to be Aeolic, Mtth. 289. More- 


over, see also Bornem. on Acts as above. 


19 


65 
Tth ed. 


63 
Sth ed. 


§10. FOREIGN WORDS AND WORDS WHICH ARE INDECLINABLE. 


1. In the case of certain Hellenized Oriental names the Sept. 
and the N. T. writers have introduced a simple mode of inflection, 
according to which the Gen., Dat., and Voc. coincide for the most 
part in one and the same form, and the Acc. is designated by ». 
To this class of nouns belong the following: ’Incotds, Gen. ’Incod 
Matt. xxvi. 69, Dat. "Incod Matt. xxvi. 17,1! Voc. “Incod Mark 
i. 24, Acc. “Incodv Matt. xxvi. 4; Acts xx. 21. Avi or Aevis 
(Luke v. 29), Acc. Aeviy Mark ii. 14. ‘Twons Gen. ‘Ioch Matt. 
xxvii. 56; Luke iii. 29, etc. (but B D and L have everywhere in 
Mark ’Iwoyt0s), Bttm. 1.199. Like ’Incods is declined the Egyp- 
tian name Oapods (Plat. Phaed. 274d.) Mtth. 1.198. The word 
Moos (Moicfs) is declined in two ways. The Gen. (also in the 
Greek Fathers and Byzant. authors) is invariably Macéws (ef. 
Diod. S. Eel. 84, p. 194, Lips.). As to the Dat., however, even 
vood Codd. vary between Mace? (also in Kuseb. and 'Theophan.) 
and Mwon, cf. Matt. xvii.4; Markix.5; Luke ix. 83; Jno. v. 46; 
ix. 29; Acts vii. 44; Rom. ix. 15; 2 Tim. iii: 8. The Acesas 


1 Along with these forms, the Codd. of the Sept. often have for the Dat. (Deut. iii. 
21, 28; xxxi. 23) and even for the Gen. (Exod. xvii. 14) the form “Inco?. — 


“3 i 
“>? oe 


§ 10. FOREIGN AND INDECLINABLE WORDS. 67 


Moov, Acts vi. 11; vii. 835; 1 Cor. x. 2; Heb. iii. 8 (Diod. 8.1, 
94); only Luke xvi. 29 has without var. Mwoéa (as Kuseb. H. K. 
1, 3, and often in Clem. Alex., Geo. Syncell., Glycas, etc.). All 
these forms, with the exception of Macéws, may be derived un- 
hesitatingly from Nom. Mwofs (see the analogies Bttm. I. 198, 
910, 221). For Macéws, a Nom. Macevs has been demanded ; 
but it does not occur, and after all it is not necessary, since “Apys 
also has sometimes Gen. “Apews (Hllendt, Lexic. Soph. I. 224). 
Outside of the N.T.the Gen. Mwo7 is also found in LXX. and 
Geo. Phrantz., and Mwaod in Bauer, glossar. Theodoret. p. 269. 
Moo occurs as Voc. in Exod. ili. 4. Mavacoy in Matt. i. 10 
has Acc. Mavacoy, according to others Mavaconp. 


The name of Solomon in text. rec. is declined YoAopavra Matt. i. 6, 
SoAoupavros Matt. xii. 42; Luke xi. 31; Jno. x. 23; Acts ili, 11; v. 12 
(like Zevoddv, Zevofadvros). But the better MSS. have Yodopavos, Yodo- 
pova, see Wetsten. I. 228; and this, being according to analogy and also 
the received form in Joseph. ed. Havercamp, deserves probably to be 
admitted into the text, since the termination év, évros implies derivation 
from a participle (Bttm. I. 169; Lob. paralip. 547). But then we must 
write in the Nom. (not SoAopzév, as Lchm. even has printed, but) SoAouav 80 
agreeably to the better authorities,! like BafvAwy, etc. (cf. also Pappelb. 
Cod. Diez. p.9). Tocedav (Ilocedévos), being contracted from Ioceddur, 
is not analogous. In the Sept. SoAouwy is indeclinable ; see 1 Kings iv. 
7, 29; v. 12, 15, 16; vi. 18, and elsewhere. 


2. Many Hebrew proper names which might have been inflected 
according to the 3d Decl. are used in the Sept. and in the N. T. 
as indeclinable ; e.g. ’Aapwv Gen., Heb. vii. 11; ix.4; Dat., Exod. 66 
vil. 9; Acts vil. 40; Acc., Exod. vil. 8; cf. in particular Matt. 1. Tth ed. 
and Luke iii. 23 sqq.; besides SYuuedy Luke iii. 30, Sadpwov Luke 
lil. 32, Kedpov Jno. xviii. 1 var. So “Iepeyd, Gen. Deut. xxxii. 49; 
Matt. xx. 29; Heb. xi. 80; Acc., Luke x. 80; xviii: 35 (Glyc. 
p. 804). ‘Iepovoadnu, for which, however, in Matt. Mark and 
Jno. the Grecized form ‘Iepocodvya might on the authority of MSS. 
be preferred, which is regularly declined as Neut., Matt. iv. 25; 64 
Mark iii. 8; Luke xxiii. 7; Jno. ii. 23. It is Feminine only in ‘thet 


4 

1JIn Glycas Bekker has had printed, even in the new edition, ZoAoudvros, ZoAouavTa, 
but for the Nom. Sodroudy. 

2 Elsewhere, on the other hand, we find a twofold mode of declining the word: a. 
Gen. ‘Ieptxod 3 Esr. v. 44, Dat. "Iepixe Procop. de aedif. 5,9; Theodoret. V. p. 81, 
Hal., or ‘leptxot Joseph. b. j. 1, 21,4. Suid. under Opryevfs; and b. from ‘Tepixods 
(Ptol. 5, 16, 7), Gen. ‘lepixotvros Strabo 16, 763, Acc. ‘lepucodvta 16, 760, and usually 
in Josephus. 


81 


67 
Tth ed. 


68 § 11. INFLECTION AND COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES. 


Matt. ii. 8 Gii.5?). The Sept. has only the form ‘Iepovoadnp ; 
Joseph., on the contrary, “Iepocodupa. To macxa, Luke ii. 41; 
Jno. ii. 23; as in Sept.t So also (70) oikepa Luke i. 15, and in 
Sept. Lev. x. 9; Num. vi. 3; Isa. xxiv. 9, etc. (Huseb. praep. ev. 
6,10, has Gen. olkepos).2 The Hebrew Plural termination occurs 
only in Heb. ix. 5, XepovBiw; this word, however, as in the Sept., 
is construed as Neut. (Gen. iii, 24; 1 Kings viii. 7; Ezek. x. 3, 
etc.) like wvevpuara. 


Also in Rey. i. 4a whole phrase (the Greek equivalent for Mth) is 
treated as indeclinable: dro 6 dy kal 6 jv Kal 6 épxdopevos, perhaps with 
design (as the name of the immutable One) like &, pyfe, ete. in Greek 
philosophical writings, even in Aristot. e.g. polit. 5, 3; Procl. theol. Plat. 
2. ed. Hoeschel pera. rod ev, xwpis rod ev (Stollberg, de soloecis. N. T. p. 14 
sqq-). On the other hand, in Creuzer’s edition of the writings of Proclus 
we find invariably ék rod évés, év to évi. Cf. also tov 6 detva, Schiif. 


Demosth. IIT. 282. 


§11. INFLECTION AND COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES. 


1. Adjectives of three terminations, particularly those in os, 
fos, eos, avos, are not unfrequently (especially in Attic authors) 
used as adjectives of only two terminations (Elmsley, Kurip. Heracl. 
p. 77, Lips. ; Monk, Eurip. Hippol. p. 56, and Eurip. Alcest. 126, 
548,1043; Mtth.295ff). In the N. T. we find Luke ii. 13 orparia 
ovpavios, Acts xxvi. 19, coopuos 1 Tim. ii. 9; also Rev. iv. 3 épus 
(Fem.) xuxr0bev tod Opovov smotos (the best established reading) 
cpapayolve, etc. ; see my exeget. Stud. 1.152. On the other hand, 
in 1 Tim. ii. 8 dctous xetpas (for dcias, which some Codd. in fact 
have), éciovs may possibly be construed with ézaipovtas, though 
that is not necessary (Fr. Rom. I1I.16). Cf. also Tit. ili. 9 waravoz 


referring to a Fem. subst., and Jas. i. 26 watacos 7 Opnoxeia. 


On the other hand, later Greek has used adjectives of two termi- 
nations as adjectives of three terminations; as, apyos Lob. p. 105, 


1 So also in the Fathers ; see Suicer, thes. II. 607 sqq.; Epiphan. haer. IJ. 19 gives 
inflection even to the Plur. t& macxa. . 

2 Most of these names are declined in Josephus, who generally, in conformity to the 
genius of the Greek language, gives terminations to almost all proper names (of persons), 
and consequently declines them; e.g. “Adauos, "IouaiAos, N&xos, “Iouxos, and others. 
The instances of undeclined foreign names, which Georgi, Hierocr. I. 138, produces from 
Plato.and Pausan., are partly not to the point, and partly prove nothing against the 
tendency to inflection. Even Ptolem., besides the large number of declined names of 


places, used some as indeclinable ; obbe, schedae Ptolem. I. (Lips. 1841. 8vo.) p. 23 sq. 


§ 11. INFLECTION AND COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES. 69 


and paralip. p. 455 sqq., cf. Hllendt, Arrian. Al. I. p. 242. Yet 
this occurs in a quotation from Epimenides Tit. i. 12. Suyyerrjs, 
és, forms a special feminine cvyyevis (substant.) Luke i. 36, which 
on the authority of good Codd. Lchm. has adopted, Lob. Phryn. 
451 sq. Cf. Malal. pp. 95, 96. 


Aiovios has in the N. T. usually but two terminations; but in 2 Thess. 65 
ii. 16; Heb. ix. 12 aiwviay occurs in the text, and in the latter passage ‘the 
without var.; also, according to some Codd., in 2 Pet. i. 11; Acts xiii. 48 ; 
ef. Num. xxv. 13, Plat. Tim. 58b. BePaia Rom. iv. 16, ete., which the 
fastidious Thom. M. 149 declares to be corrupt, is found in Isocr., Demosth. 
(Weber, Dem. p. 133), Xenoph., etc., cf. Duker, Thuc. 2, 43. “Epnyos, 
which even in Attic varies (cf. Ellendt, Arrian, Al. I. p. 262; Mtth. 506), 
in the N. T. always has two terminations. As to dodadnv Heb. vi. 19, 
i.e. dapadnv [so too Lchm. in his stereotype ed., while in his larger ed. he 
writes dogadyy | see § 9. note 3, p. 66. 

The N. T. Lexicons { Grimm, however, has it correctly] give yvjctos as 
an adjective of two terminations (Phil. iv. 38?) without sufficient reason, 
since the Fem. in the form yvjovos cannot be shown to occur. 


2. On the Comparison of adjectives we have only to observe, 

a. The Compar. Neut. of tayvs is tayiov (Jno. xx. 4; 1 Tim. 
iii. 14; Heb. xiii. 19, 23, etc.), for which in earlier Greek @aacon, 
and in Attic Oarrov, was usual. Tdycov occurs regularly in Diod., 

S., Dion. H., Plutarch and others, Lob. p. 77 ; Meineke, Menandr. 
p. 144; cf. also 1 Mace. ii. 40; Wisd. xiii. 9. 

b. In 3 Jno. 4 we find a double Comparative pecférepos, and in 
Eph. iii. 8 a Compar. formed from the Superlative éhaysororepos 82 
(ef. éXayictotatos Sext. Emp. 9, 406, and in Latin, minimissimus, 
pessimissimus). Such forms belong specially to the diction of 
poetry (Apoll. Rhod. 2, 368, pevorepos),or to the later language 
which sought thus to strengthen the Comparative that had become 
weak to the popular mind; cf. «pevtrotepos Ducas 27, 29, 37, 
poecfovotepos ibid. c. 27, and Malal. 18, p. 490, wecZorepos Constant. 
Porph. III. 257, wdesorepos Theophan. p. 567. Yet some such 
instances are found even in earlier authors (see Wetst. II. 247), 
though, as in the case of éoyatwtepos Aristot. Metaph. 10, 4, not 68 
as already existing and current, but as arbitrary formations; see Te 
Bttm. I. 274 f., Lob. Phryn. p. 136. In German compare the form 
mehrere from mehr. 

c. The Comparatives cata@tepos Eph. iv. 9, averepos Luke xiv. 10, 
éswtepos Acts xvi. 24, from the adverbs caro, diva, éow, are ground- 
lessly questioned by Bttm. I. 271. They are the undoubted read- 


66 
6th ed 


83 


70 § 12. AUGMENT AND REDUPLICATION 


ings in the N. T. and Sept., and not only occur frequently in later 
authors, as Leo Diac. 10, 1, but even in Attic, Mtth. 328. 

On the form of the Comp. of other Adverbs derived from Adjec- 
tives, as mepiacotépws 2 Cor. i. 12; Gal. i. 14; Phil. ii. 28, etc.,. 
which is not unknown to classic Greek writers, see Bttm. II. 345; 
Elmsley, Eurip. Herac. p. 100 Lips. 

The Positive jpenos 1 Tim. ii. 2 is not found in earlier Greek (Bttm. 
I. 271, I. 343) ; Lob. pathol. p. 158 has shown that it occurs in Inscript. 
Olbiopol. 2059, 24. 


§ 12. AUGMENT AND REDUPLICATION OF REGULAR VERBS. 


1. A temporal Augment instead of the syllabic occurs, 

a. In the Imperfect jwedre Jno. iv. 47; xi. 51; xii. 335 xviii. 
32; Luke x. 1; Acts xvi. 27 ; xxvii. 83; Rev. x. 4, with decided 
preponderance of authority. On the contrary, gueAre in Luke 
ix. 31; Jno. vi. 71; Heb. xi. 8, is better attested. See in general 
Bockh, Plat. Men. p. 148 sq. 

b. In the Imperfect névvato Matt. xxvi. 9; Mark vi. 5,19; xiv. 
5; Jno. ix. 383; xi. 87; Luke viii. 19; xix. 3, with preponderance 
of authority ; there is good evidence on the other hand for édvvato 
Luke i. 22; Acts xxvi. 32, and Rev. xiv. 38, and édvvacGe 1 Cor. 
iii. 2. The Aorist 7d6ur7@nv is fully established in Matt. xvii. 16, 19; 
Mark ix. 28; Luke ix. 40; 1 Cor. iii. 1. See on these current 
Attic forms Georgi, Hierocr. I. p.382; Bttm. I. 3817; Jacobs, Achill. 
Tat. p. 554; Ellendt, Arrian. Al. II. p. 208; Boisson. Aen. Gaz. 
p. 173, and Anecd. V. p. 19; cf. Bornem. Act. p. 278. 

ce. But neither 7BovrAcunv Acts xv. 87; xxvili. 18 nor 7BovrAnOnv 
2 Jno. 12 (Mtth. 375) is sufficiently attested ; see Bornem. Act. 233. 

2. The syllabic Augment in a verb beginning with a vowel oc- 
curs, Jno. xix. 32f. catéaEay 1st Aor. from Kxatayvupe (cf. Thom. 
M. 498), and even in the other Moods, as cateaydou Jno. xix. 31, 
Bttm. I]. 97; cf. Thuc. 8, 89; Aristot. anim. 9, 43; Plat. Cratyl. 
3889b. andc.! Also Fut. catedE&m Matt. xii. 20 and Sept., to dis- 
tinguish it from the Fut. of the verb catayw. On the other hand, 
instead of é€wvycapnv, in which verb the syllabic Augment is most 
usual in Greek authors, we find Acts vii. 16 @yncapnyv, as some- 
times in classic Greek (Lob. 139); and for éwca, éwoaunv Acts 


1JIn Cinnam. p. 190, we find besides an unusual form of the Perfect, caredynxe. 


OF REGULAR VERBS. Th 


vii. 27, 39, 45, doa, dodunv, see $15. Cf. similar instances in 
Poppo, Thue. Ill]. II. p. 407; Index to Leo Gramm. p. 533. 

3. In verbs beginning with ev we find | 

a. Unaugmented evdoxnoa preponderating, only in Matt. xvii. 5; 


69 


1 Cor. x. 5; Col. i. 19; Heb. x. 6, 8 is dddxnoa favored by the Met 


' Codd. Also evrAoynoa predominant over nvAGynca (Matt. xiv. 19 ; 
Luke xxiv. 30; Heb. xi. 20, 21). Likewise Perf. evAdynxev Heb. 
vil. 6; evyovto Acts xxvii. 29, evyaplornce Acts xxvii. 35, evzropetto 
Acts xi. 29; etpicxew decidedly (only Mark xiv. 55 is nijpucKov 
supported by good Codd.; further, cf. Acts vii. 46; Luke xix. 48), 
ef. Lob. p. 140, and Soph. Ai. p. 125; Hm. Eurip. Bacch. p. 11; 
Boisson. Philostr. epp. p. 75. Even in Attic the Augm. is defended 
by Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 191, and it occurs frequently in the Apocr. 
(Hivang. Nicod. c. 20) and the Fathers. 

b.. With Augm. yvydunv preponderating Rom. ix. 8 (without 
Augm. see Xen. Anab. 4, 8, 25; Cyrop. 3, 2, 15, yet not without 
var.), nvxapliotncav Rom. i. 21, niddpncev Luke xii. 16 (doubt- 
ful), nv«aipovy Mark vi. 31 (on the other hand Acts xvii. 21 
doubtful), nippavOn Acts ii. 26 (from Sept.). Cf. generally Bttm. 
I. 321; Poppo, Thue. I. 227, also Lehm. Lucian II. p. 456. Evay- 
yer. has the Augm. after ev, and that without var. Acts viii. 35, 
40; xvii.18; 1 Cor. xv.1; Gal. iv. 13; Rev. x. 7, etc. (see Lob. 
p. 269), even wpoevnyyedicato Gal. iii. 8. So also evapeorety Heb. 
xi. 5 (yet Cod. A and several others, without Augm.). Of mpos- 
evyeo@ar the forms nearly always have Augm. without var., as 
mposnv—ato Matt. xxvi. 44, mposniyero Mark i. 35; Acts viii. 15 ; 
Luke xxii. 41, ete. 

4, The only verb beginning with os which occurs in past tenses, 
oixodouetv, has, not indeed without var., but on vastly prepondera- 
ting authority, the regular Augment; as, @xoddunce Matt. vii. 24; 
xxi. 33, @xodounto Luke iv. 29, dxoddmouv Luke xvii. 28, @kodopOy 
Jno. ii. 20. Only in Acts vii. 47, good Codd. have ofxodopuqee, on 
which later form see Lob. 153. 

5. IIpopntevew has in Jude 14 with preponderating authority 
the Augment after the preposition, as usual (Bttm. 1. 835); but 
the better Codd. give elsewhere forms like épopyteveav Matt. xi. 
13, érpodnretcapuev Matt. vii. 22, ésrpodrjrevce Matt. xv. 7; Mark 
vil. 6; Luke i. 67; Jno. xi. 51, émpodyrevov Acts xix. 6. Schulz 
ad Matt. vii. 22, advised that the latter should be everywhere re- 
ceived into the text, and this Lchm. and Tdf. have done. In 
later writers the Augment.is often put before the preposition ; as, 


84 


67 
6th ed 


70 
7th ed. 


85 


79 § 12. AUGMENT AND REDUPLICATION 


érposOnxev, écvupeBovrevov (see Index to Ducas, to Jo. Cananus and 
others, in the Bonn ed.), éxatyyouv Epiphan. Mon. 33, 16.1. In 
mpodnreverv, however, this is less surprising, as there was no sim- 
ple @nrevew ; cf. Num. xi. 25f; Sir. xlviii. 18. 

6. The Augment of the form e’Anpa (for the unusual rAnda, 
Bttm. I. 316), is transferred also to the 1st Aor., catecAnjpOn for 
kateAngOn Jno. viii. 4, not without var. (see Maittaire, dialectt. 
ed. Sturz, p. 58) ; traces of this already existed in Ionism. 

7. A double Augment occurs, 

a. In drexateotd@y Matt. xii. 13; Mark iii. 5; Luke vi. 10, now 
properly in the text (cf. Lucian, Philopat. c. 27 dzexatécryce, 
Ducas 29 daexatéotnoav, Theophan. p. 374 dmexaréorn, Cinnam. 
p- 209 avrexatéornyv ; see Dindorf, Diod. 8. p. 539, and Schaf. 
Plutarch. V. p. 198).? 

b. In avéwEev Jno. ix. 14, 30, dvedyOn Luke i. 64 (Bttm. II. 250), 
once even in Aor. Inf. avemyOjvar Luke iii. 21. Good Codd. give, 
further, many other forms in this verb, viz. #vouFev Rev. xii. 16 
etc., nvoiyOncav Rev. xx. 12, jvoiyny Acts xii. 10; Rev. xi. 19; 
Xv. 5, as in Sept. and later writers (Bttm. as above 251; Lob. p. 
153), and with a threefold augment, Matt. ix. 30 nve@y@noav ; Jno. 
ix. 10; Acts xvi. 26; Acts ix. 8; Rev. xix..11 nvemypévov (Nicet. 
Eugen. 2, 84, 128, var.) ; var. Jno. ix. 14; Rev. xx. 12 (Gen. 
vii. 11; viii. 6; Dan. vii. 10; 3 Macc. vi.18). Cf. Thilo, Apoer. 
I. 669. 

c. In jveiyecOe 2 Cor. xi. 1, 4, text. rec. (cf. Thuc. 5, 45, Herodi. 
8,5, 9) and jveryounv, for avery. Acts xvill. 14 (cf. Her. 7, 159 ; 
Thue. 3, 28) exactly as in Greek writers, who in these forms 
hardly admit the single Augm. (Bttm. II. 189) ; yet in 2 Cor. the 
better Codd. have avelyeo@e. 

8. “Epycfouas has, according to Codd., several times 7pyacato 
for etpydcato Matt. xxv. 16; xxvi. 10; Mark xiv.6; Luke xix. 16; 
Acts xviii. 3 (Exod. xxxvi. 4). The same form occurs also in a 
good MS. of Demosth. (Schif. appar. V. p. 603) ; ef. Sturz, p. 125. 
On the other hand, good Codd. (Lchm. and Tdf.) have from é\x«odpy 
in Luke xvi. 20, etAxw@pévos ; cf. also Clem. Al. p. 3848 Sylb. 

9. The Augm. is for the most part entirely omitted in the forms 
of the Pluperf.; as, Mark xiv. 44 ded@xec (xv. 10; Jno. xi. 57), 


ue Eniphanii Mon. edita et inedita cura A. Dressel. Paris, 1843. 8vo. 

2 Compare also émpoepjtevoy Leo Gramm. pp. 33, 35, and 36, éxaterxedacay Canan. 
462, éovvewaptupovy ibid. 478, npdpiorat Theophan. 112, erpoérata Theodor. Gramm. 
40,8. As to the Attic Authors, see V. Mritzsche, Aristoph. I. 55. 


OF REGULAR VERBS. ts 


Mark xv. 7 memroujpcecay (xvi. 9 €xBeBrjxer), Luke vi. 48 [var.; 68 
Matt. vii. 25] re@euerdiwto, 1 Jno. ii. 19 peperjxercav, Acts xiv. 8 Oth of 
mepimevratyKer (see Valcken. on the passage), vs. 23 memuctevKevoap. 

In consistency, these forms are to be preferred in the N. T. text. 
Ionic prose authors also (Her. 1,122. 8, 42.9, 22) and Attic (e.g. 
Plato) drop the Augm. in the Pluperf. often, especially in forms 
that would offend the ear (Bttm. I. 518), particularly in compounds 
(ef. Acts xiv. 8); (see Georgi, Hierocr. I. 179; Poppo, Thue. I. 

p. 228; Bornem. Xen. Anab. p. 272; Jacob, Lucian. Tox. p. 68 ; 
Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. pp. 265, 284); cf. Thuc. 8, 92; Xen. C. 

3, 2, 24. As to the later writers see especially the Index to Joa. 
Cinnam. Bonn ed. 

10. The reduplication after the analogy of péurnwa (Bttm, I. 
315) appears in prnotever Oar Luke i. 27; ii. 5 weyrnorevpévn, not, 
however, without the opposition of good Codd. Cf. Sept. Deut. 
Xx. 7; xxii. 23 sqq. On pepavricpévor Heb. x. 22, see § 13, 1. b. 

In the best Codd. the Aor. of the compound éraioyxvvopat 2 Tim. i. 16, 
is formed without the temp. Aug. ézairyxvv6y, and recent editors have ad- 
mitted it into the text. So also Luke xiii. 13, dvop@a6n. 


§13. RARE FORMS IN THE TENSES AND PERSONS OF REGULAR 
VERBS. 


1. a. Tenses which in other respects follow completely the 71 
analogy of the 2d Aor., have in the Sept. the termination a and Tthed. 
so forth (of the 1st Aor.) (see Sturz, dial. Alex. p. 61; Valckenaer, 
Herod. p. 649, 91; Dorville, Charit. p. 402; Wolf, Demosth. Lept. 86 
P: 216), e.g. eidapev 1 Sam. x. 14, efdav “OF épuyav 2 Sam. x. 14, 
evpav XVil. 20, epayapev xix. 42, €X@arw Ksth. v. 4 (Prov. ix. 6; 
Amos vi.2; 2 Chron. xxix. 17), etc. In the N.T. modern editors 
have restored this form, agreeably to the-concurrent testimony of 
the best Codd.t: Matt. xxv. 36 #\@arte, é&y\ate, Matt. xxvi. 59 
TapedOatw, 2 Ties li. 13 efXaro, Acts vii. 10; xii. 11 é&e/rXarTo, 
vii. 21 dve/dard, Gal. v. 4 é&errécare, Rev. vii. 11 (Heb. iii. 17 ; Jno. 
XVili. 6) évrecav, Jno. vi. 10 avérrecav, Heb. ix. 12 eUPAapEVOS, ee 
Opp. 1. 619; Theodoret, Opp. I. 837, Hal.) ef. Acts 1. 25; xvii. 
Meeieeee V1. Of 5 XX11. (; xxvill. 16; Matt. vil. 18, 255 x1. ee 


1 Respecting the MSS. which have this form, see Hug, Binleit. I. S. 238, 242, 244, 
247, 249, 263; Scholz, curae crit. p.40; Rinck, lucubratt. p.37; Tdf. prolegg. ad Cod. 
Ephraemi, p. 21. 

10 


69 
6th ed. 


72 
Tth od. 


87 


74. § 18. RARE FORMS IN THE TENSES 


xvii. 65 xxii. 22; xxv. 386; xxvi. 39, 55; Luke nt. 163 ee 
xxii. 525 Rom: xv. 35 1 Car. x.) 832 Corsyis 17); 1. Jno 


Rey. v. 8, 14; vi. 13. In the Codd. we find, to be sure, no sort © 


of consistency in respect either to the writers or to the words.1 
In many passages where this form appears in only a few Codd. it 
might be attributed to the transcribers,” particularly where similar 
flexions in a precede or follow; see Elmsley, Eurip. Med. p. 232 
Lips.; Fr. Mr. 638sqq. Further, it is found mainly in the Ist 
Per. Sing. and Plur. or 2d or 8d Per. Plur. In the 2d Sing., 
on the other hand, the Imperative and the Partic., it very seldom 
occurs. On instances of such Aor. in Greek authors (e.g. Orpheus) 
see Bttm. I. 404. IIposémeca occurring in Eurip. Troad. 293 
Seidler has changed into mposévecov ; and in Alcest. 477 undoubt- 
edly méoor should be read for aécee, see Herm. on the passage.? 
On the other hand, we find in Theophan. p. 283 éecayv, Achill. 
Tat. 8, 17 catemécapev, c. 19 mepierrécapev, and Kustath. amor. Ism. 
I. p. 4. should, on the authority of good Codd., be amended éx7réecee, 
see Jacobs p. 664; cf. besides Lob. 183; Mtth. I. 424f. In the 
Byzantine writers various forms of this sort unquestionably occur, 
e.g. AAOav Malalas 18, p.465; 12, p. 895, avAjrGav 15, p. 889, nipapev 
18, p. 449, awé\Oare Ducas 24, é&éXOare Leo Gr. p. 343, éreiséAOaTe 
ibid. p. 8337. Cf. in general the Index to Ducas, p. 639, and to 
Theophan. p. 682 sq. Bonn. 

b. The past tenses of verbs beginning with p are found in the 
best Codd. with a single p (ef. §5 No.4) ; as, 2 Cor. xi. 25 épaBdicOnp, 
Heb. ix. 19 épavtice (x. 22 épavticpevor), Matt. xxvi. 67 éparicar, 
according to AD 2 Tim. iii. 11 épvcaro, according to AC [Sin.] 
iv. 17 épvc@nv; cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 18; Exod. v. 23; vii. 10; Ley. 
xiv. 7,51; Num. viii. 7. Such forms are confessedly poetic, Bttm. 
I. 84; Mtth. I. 124, yet they frequently occur also in the Codd. 
of Greek prose, Bast, comment. crit. p. 788. In the Perf. the Codd. 


1 They are mostly verbs whose Ist Aor. is not in use. 

2°Avdrecat, Which, according to good Codd., occurs in Luke xiv. 10; xvii. 7 (a trace 
of it appears in Polyb. 6, 37, 4, éxmeoauévors var.), must be the Imperat. of a similarly 
formed Aor. Mid. (avereodunv). As, however, the latter nowhere’occurs, dvdmecat is 
probably to be regarded as a mistake of the copyist (copyists often interchanged e and 
at) for avdmece, which, in fact, is the reading of the best Codd., and has been recently 
received into the text; cf. also Rinck, lucubratt. p. 330. Besides, it is only the 2d Aor, 
Act. of this verb that is found, Matt. xv. 35; Mark vi. 40; Luke xi. 37; xxii. 14; 
Jno. vi. 10, etc. The Fut. (as tier), for which /’r. Mr. p. 641 is disposed to take 
these forms, does not accord well with the construction, particularly as in the second 
passage Imperatives immediately follow. 

8 On the other hand, a Greck inscription in Béckh, II. 220 has, distinctly, efperap. 


os 


AND PERSONS OF REGULAR VERBS. 15 


Al. [Sin.] and Ephraem. Heb. x. 22, give the reduplicated form 
pepavriopévot, of which, besides the Homeric (Odyss. 6, 59) pepu- 
' wopéva, several examples occur in later writers, Lob. paralip. 13. 
So in Matt. ix. 36 the Cod. Cantab. gives pepimpévos, which Lehm. 
has adopted. 

c. The Futures of verbs in sf sometimes are found (with un- 
important var. in Codd.) in the contracted form; as, peroud 
Acts vii. 43, adopret Matt. xxv. 32, apopiovar Matt. xiii. 49, ywwpiodae 
Col. iv. 9, cafapiet? Heb. ix. 14, dvaxafapiet Matt. iii. 12, eXvodce 
Matt. xii. 21, waxapiodo. Luke i. 48, etc. This is an Atticism 
(though the same form was not foreign to the lonians also) ; ef. 
Georgi, Hieroc. I. p. 29; Fischer, Weller. Il. p. 855; Mtth. I. p. 
402. Of Barrif&m the common form Bazrtice: alone is used Matt. 
iii. 11. On otnpifm see $15. In the Sept. verbs in afw also are 
inflected after the same analogy in the Future, e.g. épyarau Lev. 
xxv. 40, dp7wd xix. 13, etc. Such Attic Futures of contract verbs 
some have wished to find in Matt. ii. 4 yevvazas, Jno. xvi. 17 Oewpetre 
(on account of éeoGe following), Matt. xxvi. 18 wow; but all 
these are Presents. See § 41,2; cf. Fr. Mt. as above, Mtth. p. 403 f. 

d. Of verbs in’ aww, Aeveaivw has in the Aor. the Attic form 
(Bttm. I. 459) Aeveavar Mark ix. 3, and Bacxaivw Gal. iii. 1 in 
var. has the equally classic form ¢8acxnnva. But onuaivo has Aor. 
éonuava Acts xi. 28; Rev. i. 1, see below, $15. Mapaivw 1 Cor. 
i. 20 and &ypaivw Jas. i. 11, have the a as verbs in paivw do regu- 
larly. Respecting davai see § 15, p. 89. 

e. Futures Subjunctive are occasionally noted in individual 
passages, from a greater or less number of Codd., e.g. 1 Cor. xiii. 3 
Kavnowpuar (adopted by Griesbach), 1 Pet. iii. 1 xepdnO@jowvrat, 
1 Tim. vi. 8 adpxec@nowpcba (in both passages without much au- 
thority). In the better class of authors such forms probably 
originate with the transcribers, see Abresch in Observatt. misc. II]. 
p- 13; Lob. 721; but in later writers, and the Scholiasts particularly 
(cf. Thue. 38, 11 and 54), they cannot be rejected (see Niebuhr, 
ind. ad Agath. p. 418, and ind. to Theophan. p. 682). In the 
N. T., however, there is very little authority for these Subjunctives. 
Quite isolated are evpjons Rey. xviii. 14 and evpjcwow Rey. ix. 6 
(yet an Aor. evpjoa: also occurs, see Lob. p. 721), yrerwvta Acts 
xxi. 24 (yet cf. Lob. p. 735). (éWyobe Luke xiii. 28 and dwo7 
Jno. xvii. 2, are unquestionably Aor.) 

2. Peculiar personal endings are : 

a. The 2d Per. Sing. Pres. and Fut. Pass. and Mid. in ec for y; 


70 
6th ed 


yb 
Tth ed, 


88 


ak: 
6th ed. 


89 


14 
Tth ed, 


76 § 13. RARE FORMS IN THE TENSES 


as, Bovres Luke xxii. 42, mwapé&er vil. 4 (var.), dec Matt. xxvii. 4 
and Jno. xi. 40 (var.). Of. also Matt. xxvii. 4; Acts xvi. 315 
xxiv. 8 (var.). In the two verbs émrecOae and PovrAecOar this is — 
the form invariably used in Attic (Bttm. I. 848); in other verbs 
it seldom occurs, and almost exclusively in the poets (cf. Valcken. 
ad. Phoen. p. 216sq.; Fischer. ad Weller. I. p! 119) Uieimoga 
Georgi, Hierocr. I. p. 84; Schwarz ad Olear. p. 225), yet it appears 
in good MSS. even of Attic prose, Bttm. as above; but cf. Schneider, 
praef. ad Plat. civ. I. p. 49 sqq. 

b. In the 2d Per. Sing. we find the original uncontracted form 
not only in évvacat (Matt. v. 36; viii. 2; Mark i. 40) where it 
continued to be the usual form, Bttm. I. 502 (yet cf. dvvy Mark 
ix. 22; Rev. 11. 2, and var. Luke xvi. 2,1 which at first was used 
only by the poets, subsequently by prose authors also, e.g. Polyb. 
7,11,5; Aelian. 13, 32, see Lob. 859), but we find it also in con- 
tract verbs, ddvvacas Luke xvi. 25 (Aeschyl. Choéph. 354), cavydéoar 
Rom. ii. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 7, and xataxavyacat Rom. xi. 18; ef. 
Georgi, Hierocr. I. p. 184; Bttm. I. 847; Boisson. Anecd. IV. p. 
479. See mivw below. 

c. In the 3d Per. Plur. of the Perfect av for ace (from the 
old termination avte); as, éyywxav Jno. xvii. 7, Tern pnKav xvii. 6, 
eipnxav Rey. xix. 8, also Luke ix. 86 and Col. ii. 1 é®paxay in very 
good Codd., likewise Rev. xxi. 6; Jas. v. 4. So also in Sept., 
e.g. Deut. xi. 7; Judith vii. 10 (Acta apoecr. p. 235). This form 
belongs to the Alexandrian dialect; cf. Sext. Emp. 1, 10, p. 261, 
and the Papyri Taurin. p. 24 (xexupievxay) ; but occurs also in 
Lycophr. 252 (aédpixay), in inscriptions and often in the Byzantine 
writers (cf. Index to Ducas p. 639, to Codin. and Leo Gramm.) ; 
see Bttm. I. 845. Tdf. has received it into the text in all the 
above passages of the N.T. But in Rev. ii. 3 he has rejected [yet 
not in ed. vii.] the form «exomiaxes (Hxod. v. 22) found in AC. 

d. The Ist Aor. Opt. has the original Adolic termination eva, esas, 
eve, instead of aus; as, Wnradjoecav Acts xvii. 27, trouoevav Luke 
vi. 11. So very frequently Gin 2d and 8d Sing. and 3d Plur.) in 
Attic authors: Thuc. 6, 19. 8,6; Aristoph. Plut. 95; Plat. rep. 
I. 837 ¢.; Gorg. 500c.; Xen. An. 7, 7, 30, etc.; see Georgi, Hieroer. 
I. p. 150 sq.; Bttm. I. 854 f., and still more frequently in later 
authors. See Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. p. 358. 

e. The 3d Per. Plur. of the Imperative in twcav occurs repeat- 


1 As to this form, which some would exchange for diva, compare Porson, Enrip. Hee. 
257; Schif. and Hm. Soph. Philoct. 787; Oudend. ad Thom. M. p. 252; Lod. p. 359. 


AND PERSONS OF REGULAR VERBS. iy 


edly in the N. T. ; as, 1 Cor. vii. 9 yaunodtacay, Vii. 36 yapettocar, 
1 Tim. v. 4 pavOavétwoar (Tit. iii. 14), cf. Acts xxiv. 20; xxv. 5. 
’ The assertion of Elmsley, Eurip. Iphig. T. p. 232, ed. Lips., that 
this form did not become usual till after Aristotle’s time, has been 
fully refuted by Mtth. I. 442 and Bornem. Xen. An. p. 38. 

f. The 3d Per. Plur. of the historical tenses has often, in good 
Codd., the termination ocav (Bttm. I. 846); as, Jno. xv. 22, 24 
elyooar for eiyov, xix. 3 édidocav for éd/douv, 2 Thess. iii. 6 wapedd- 
Bocav, and Rom. iii. 13 from Sept. édododcav. This termination 
is much used in the Sept. and by the Byzantines; as, Exod. xv. 27 
MrOocav, Josh. v. 11 épayooar, Exod. xvi. 24 cateXirocayr, xviii. 26 
expivooav, Niceph. Greg. 6, 5, p. 113 eidocav, Nicet. Chon. 21, 7, 
p. 402 xat7dOocav, Niceph. Bryenn. p. 165 pet 7dOocav, Brunck, 
Analect. II. p. 47; cf. also 1 Macc. vi. 31; Cant. ili. 3; v.7; vi. 8; 
eens. 24/3 y 115 vis 14; vii. 19; Judg. xix. 11; i. 6; 
Ruth i. 4; Lam. ii.14; Ezek. xxii.11; Exod. xxxiii.8, etc., Fischer, 
Weller. Il. p. 356 sq. ; Georgi, Hierocr. I. p. 165 sq. ; Lob. Phryn. 
049, and pathol. 485; Sturz, p. 58sqq. In the N. T. however, 
with the exception of Rom. as above, only single Codd. give this 
form, and it may possibly be attributable everywhere to the Alex- 
andrian transcribers. 

8. Of contracted verbs we must note 

a. The Future éxyeo Acts ii. 17, 18 Sept., after the manner of 
verbs in A, p, v, p, cf. LXX. Ezek. vii. 8; xxi. 31; Jer. xiv. 16; 
Hos. v.10; Zech. xii. 10; Bttm. I p. 369. Were it accented 
éexxéo, it would be, according to Elmsley, the Attic Fut., as this 
form is both Pres. and Fut.; see Bttm. II. 325. But in Sept. with 
the same accent it is further inflected, exyeeis, €xyeeire, Exod. iv. 9; 
meee ia; xxx. 18; Deut. xii. 16. 

b. The usual forms of the two verbs éuhdaw, rewdw, in the 
(Attic) literary language were Inf. Subjv, rewhv, and Indic. duljs, 
dup, ete., Bttm. 1.487. In the N. T. we find instead Supav, dupa 
Rom. xii. 20; Jno. vil. 87, wewav Phil. iv. 12, rewa Rom. xii. 20; 
1 Cor. xi. 21, which first occurs after the time of Aristot. (Anim. 
9, 31, cf. Sallier ad Thom. M. p. 699; Lob. 61). According to 
the same analogy we find Fut. rewaow (for rewnow) Rey. vii. 16 ; 
Jno. vi. 35 var. (Isa. vi. 27; Psalm xlix.12), and 1st Aor. éredvaca 
Mark ii. 25; xi. 12; Matt. xii. 1,3; xxv. 35; Luke iv. 2. Both 
forms are peculiarities of later Greek ; see Lob. 204. 

c. Of verbs in ew, retaining ¢ in the Fut. etc. (Lob. paral. 435), 
we find in the N. T. xarécw, tedéow (Bttm. I. p. 392), also dopécw 


A) 


(4 


6th ed. 
90 


7&8 § 14. RARE INFLECTIONS OF VERBS IN mI 


and édopeca 1 Cor. xv. 49 (Sir. 11,5; Palaeph. 52, 4). In the 


10 
7th ed. 


91 


classics the usual form is gopycw ; yet even Isaeus has gopécas, 
see Bttm. IT. 315. (On the other hand evdopnoev Luke xii. 16.) 
On azrodécw and érawvécw, see below, § 15. 


§ 14, RARE INFLECTIONS OF VERBS IN m1 AND OF IRREGULAR 
VERBS. 


1. Of verbs in pe we find: 

a. Pluper. Act. éotjxecay Rey. vii. 11 var. for éornxevoar ; cf. 
Thue. 1,15 Evweornxecay, Xen. An. 1, 4, 4 ébeoryxecay, Heliod. 
4,16 éwxecar, cf. particularly Jacobs, Achill. Tat. pp. 400, 622 ; 
Ellendt, Arrian. Al. II. 77. 

b. 3d Per. Plur. Pres. ti@éace for tufetor Matt. v.15, wepitiléace 
Mark xv. 17, ésrirvOéaor Matt. xxiii. 4. This is the better and more 
usual form; cf. Thuc. 2, 84; Aristot. Metaph. 11. 1; Theophr. 
plant. 2, 6; see Georgi, Hierocr. I. 145sq., who adduces many 
instances, and Mtth. I. 483; Schneider, Plat. civ. Il. 250. Sim- 
ilarly évd0act Rev. xvii. 138, according to the best Codd. ; cf. Her. 
J. 93; Thue. I. 42. The contracted forms rvfetou and especially 
SiS0dct belong to the later language ; Lob. p. 244. 

c. In the Imperf. the 8d Per. Plur. has the contracted form 
édidovy for éd/Socav in compounds, Acts iv. 83; xxvii. 1; cf. Hesiod. 
épy. 123. In the Sing. the form édiédovv is more common ; Bttm. 
I. 509. 

d. On the abbreviated but very (perhaps only) common Inf. 
Perf. Act. éordva (for éotnxévat) 1 Cor. x. 12, see Bttm. I. 26 f., 
cf. Georgi, Hierocr. I. 182 sq. 

e. The Imperative Pres. Pass. in several Codd. is reptictaco 
2 Tim. ii. 16; Tit. 111. 9 (adicraco 1 Tim. vi. 5 var.) for which 
mepuictw ete. is more usual; see Th. M. p. 75; Mtth. I. 495. 

f. There are weighty authorities for forms like toréuev Rom. 
ili. 81, cumor@vtes 2 Cor. vi. 4; x. 18 (Niceph. Bryenn. p. 41, 
ef. cafictav Agath. 316, 2), avoxaOiora Mark ix. 12 (Dan. ii. 21; 
2 Sam. xvii. 12; Fabric. Pseudep. II. 610; Evora Plat. Tim. 38a.) 
from the form tcraw (Her. 4, 103, as adiocrdw Joa. Cinnam. p. 121, 
edictaw p. 65, kabiotaw p. 104) ; see Grammatici graeci, ed. Dind. 
I, 251; Dorville, Charit. p. 542; Mtth. I. 482. Similarly éuimrov 
(from éumimdvaw) Acts xiv. 17, cf. éumurpav Leo Diac. 2, 1. 

o, Optat. Pres. den for doin Rom. xv. 5; 2'Tim. i. 16, 18 (ii. 7) ; 
Eph. i. 17; iii. 16; Jno. xv. 16, dzrod@n 2 Tim. iv. 14. This is a 


AND OF IRREGULAR VERBS. 79 


later form, (in Plat. Gorg. 481 a., Lys. c., Andoc. p. 215, T. IV. 73 
recent editors have restored 6@, and in Xen. Cyr. 3, 1,35 even sk 
Schneider changed dems into doins), see Sept. Gen. xxvii. 28 ; 
xxviii. 4; Num. v. 21; xi. 29, etc., Themist. or. 8, p.174d.; Philostr. 
Apoll. 1. 834; Dio Chr. 20. 267; Aristeas, p. 120, Havere. etc., 
which the ancient grammarians reject (Phryn. p. 345; Moeris 
p. 117) ; ef. Lob. 346 ; Sturz, 52; Bttm. in Mus. antiq. stud. 1. 258.1 

h. From Baiva, 2d Aor. &8nv, we find the Imperative avaBa Rev. 76 
iv. 1, eata8a Mark xv. 30 var. (on the contrary cataBnOc Matt. Th ot 
xxvii. 40; Jno. iv. 49, wera On vii. 3; cf. Thom. Mag. p. 495, and 
Oudendorp,h.1.). Similarly Eurip, Electr. 113; Aristoph. Acharn. 
262, and Vesp. 979; see Georgi, Hierocr. I. 153 sq.; Bttm. I. 125. 
Quite analogous is avdcta Acts xii. 7; Eph. v. 14; ef. Theocrit. 
24, 36; Menand. p.48; Mein. Aesop. 62, de Fur. (but avacrn@e 
Acts ix. 6, 34, éwiornOc 2 Tim. iv. 2), also azocra protev. Jac. 2., 
mapacta Acta apocr. 51. 

i. The N. T. Codd. vary as to the form of the Perf. Part. Neut. 
of totnur. Yet the better Codd. have in the two passages Matt. 
xxiv. 15; Mark xiii. 14[ A.C. Sin. also in Rev. xiv. 1] éoros (éotnxes), 
exactly as the oldest and best Codd. of Greek authors (Bttm. II. 
208), and this form Bekker in Plato prefers throughout. Else- 
where the uncontracted forms of this participle not unfrequently 
occur in good MSS. of the N. T., as Matt. xxvii. 47 éornxdtwv Mark 
ix. 1; x1.5, éoryK@s Jno. ili. 29; vi. 22, rapertnxoow Mark xiv. 69, 
and, for the most part, have been received into the text. 

The (pretty well attested) form dwWcy Jno. xvii. 2; Rev. viii. 3 (xiii. 16 
— decwow) occurs also Theocrit. 27, 21, and is, according to some, Doric. 
In Theocrit. indeed it has for a long time been corrected to ducer; yet 
déoy occurs often enough in later writers (Lob. 721; cf. Thilo, Apocr. 
I. 871; Index ad Theophan.), and probably may be classed among the 
corrupt forms in which the popular speech indulged. 


© 
eS) 


2. From eiué we find: 

a. The Imperat. #j7w for éotw (which in the N.T. is also the 
usual form) 1 Cor. xvi. 22 5 Jas. v.12 (Ps. civ. 31; 1 Mace. x. 31; 
ef. Clem. Alex. strom. 6, 275; Acta Thom. 3,7) Bttm. I. 529; 
only once in Plato, rep. 2, 8361 d., see Schneider, h.1. According 
to Heraclides (in Eustath. p. 1411, 22) the inflection is Dorie. 
The other Imperative form ‘a4: occurs in Matt. ii. 18; v.25; Mark 
v. 84; Luke xix. 17; 1 Tim. iv. 15 (Bttm. I. 527). 


1 This form is surprising also in the N. T., as it everywhere stands where otherwise 
according to the idiom of the N. T. the Subjunctive would stand. 


14 
6th ed. 


(6 
Tth ed. 


93 


4 
80 § 14. RARE INFLECTION OF VERBS IN MI, ETC. 


b. The form inv Imperf. Mid. Ist Per. Sing. (Bttm. I. 527), 
which is rejected by the Atticists and became quite usual (par- 
ticularly with ay, as in the N.T. once in Gal. i. 10) only in later 
writers (Lob. 152; Schaf. Long. 423; Valcken. in’N. T. I. 478), 
is the common form; as, Matt. xxv. 85; Jno. xi.15; Acts x. 30; 
xi. 5,17; 1 Cor. xiii. 11, etc.; cf Thilo, Acta Thom. p. 3; Aueba 
for jwev occurs (Matt. xxiii. 30) twice in very good Codd., and 
has already been received into the text by Griesbach. Also Acts 
xxvii. 37; Lchm., agreeably to A [Sin.] and B, adopted it. ‘On the 
other hand, in Gal. iv. 3; Eph. ii. 3 it has little authority. The 
form does not occur in any good writer; yet see Epiphan. Opp. II. 
333 ; Malal. 16, p. 404. 

c. For j00a Mark xiv. 67, Codd. of little weight have 7s, rare 
in Attic, and almost doubtful (Bttm. I. 528). As to its use in 
later Greek, see Lob. 149. 


Note. ev Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. 11; Jas. i. 17 (doubtful in 1 Cor. vi. 5), 
cf. Sir. 37, 2, is usually considered (with the ancient grammarians, ef. Schol. 
ad Aristoph. Nub. 482) to be contracted from gear, and this opinion is 
defended also by Fr. Mr. p. 642. It is probably better, however, with 
Bttm. II. 375, to take it for the preposition « (év, év’é with the accent 
thrown back) which, like em, rdpa, ete., is used without etvar; as the sup- 
posed contraction would be harsh, and without example. Bttm.’s view, 
moreover, is supported by the analogy of ém: and dpa, the latter of which 
can hardly be a contraction from apeort, cf. Krii. 26. This é is very fre- 
quent in Attic, both in poetry and prose ; Georgi, Hierocr. I. 152; Schwarz, 
Comm. 486. The poets use it for eve, as éme for éreor, Il. 20, 248; 
Odyss. 9, 126; wdpa, however, is connected even with the 1st Person.! 


3. With the primitive verb tus the following forms are con- 
nected : 

a. adéwvtat Matt. ix. 2,5; Mark ii.5; Luke v. 20, 235 vii. 47; 
1 Jno. ii. 12. Ancient grammarians are not agreed in accounting 
for this form. Some, as Eustathius (Iliad, 6, 590) consider it 
equivalent to af@vras, in the same way as adéy is used by Homer 
for af7. Others, more correctly, take it for the Preterite (instead 
of adetyrat) ; so Herodian, the Etymol. Mag. and Suidas, — yet 
with this difference, that the last ascribes it to the Doric dialect, 
the author of the Etymol. to the Attic. Suidas is undoubtedly 


1 The Etymol. M. p. 357, regards &, not as a contraction of éveor:, but as an ellipsis, 
requiring the suitable person of the verb eiva: to be supplied. Moreover, whether é 
also occurs for @, is doubtful, Hm. Soph. Trach. 1020. 


§ 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS. 81 


right; and this Perf. Pass. is traceable to the Perf. Act. aféoxa, 
cf. Fischer, de vitiis lex. p. 646 sqq.; Bttm. I. 521. 

b. ndve Mark i. 84; xi. 16 (Philo leg. ad Cajum p. 1021) is the 
Imperf. of adiw (cf. adim Hecl. ii. 18, and adiouey Matt. vi. 12 
var.), like Evvov for Evviecay Iliad, 1, 273 (Bttm. I. 523), with 
the Augm. on the preposition (which occurs elsewhere also in this 
verb, as de(6y Plutarch, Sulla 28) for adie (Bttm. I. 521) see 
Fischer, Weller. Il. 480. 

ec. The Ist Aor. Pass. of adinwe in Rom. iv. 7 (Ps. xxxii. 1) 
according to most Codd. is afé@ncav. Some Codd., however, here 
and in Sept. give ade(@ncav with Augm. which is the usual form 
in Greek authors (Bttm. I. 541). 

In Rev. ii. 20 adets (Exod. xxxii. 82) from adéw has on the authority 
of good Codd. been received into the text, like rifets for r/@ns Bttm. I. 506. 

From ovvinut we have ovvotor. Matt. xiii. 15 (8d Per. Plur.), 2 Cor. 


15 
6th ed. 


x. 12 (either 3d Plur. or Dative Participle) and Participle cuviiv Matt. : 


xiii. 23 var. (Rom. iii. 11, from Sept. cvvidy) for cvve’s, which Lchm. and 
Tdf. have in the text. The first form is from cuméw, (which still survives 
in the Inf. ovveitv, Theogn. 565). The Participial form, however, espec- 
ially common in Sept. (1 Chron. xxv. 7; 2 Chron. xxxiy. 12; Ps. xl. 2; 
Jer. xx. 12) would perhaps more correctly be written ovviwy (from ovviv, 
see above, and Bttm. I. 523). Accordingly Lcehm. has printed ovviover 
Matt. xiii. 13. Cf. in general Fr. Rom. I. 174 seq. 


4. From the verb cd@nyas we find Imperat. «a8ov Matt. xxii. 44; 
Luke xx. 42; Acts ii. 34 ; Jas. ii. 3 (1 Sam. i. 23; xxii. 5; 2 Kings 
ii. 2, 6, etc.) instead of xa@yco. Only in Mark xii. 36 has Tdf. 
adopted from B xa@icov. The form xd@ov never occurs in the 
earlier Greek authors, and therefore Moeris p. 234 and Thom. M. 
p. 485 class it among spurious forms. So also «d@y for Ka@noas 
Acts xxiii. 3 (Lob. 895; Greg. Cor. ed. Schiif. p. 411): 


; § 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS. 


Not a few verbs present in the N. T. single forms, regularly 
constructed, which are rejected for the most part by ancient gram- 
marians, on the ground that they do not occur in Greek authors, 
or only in the later. Among such forms are reckoned in particular 
a number of Futures Active, for which standard writers use the 
Futures Middle (Bttm. IJ. 84 f.; Monk, Eurip. Alcest. v. 159, 645) ; 
but this subject has not yet been completely investigated. We 


subjoin a list of all such forms as have been declared unclassical, 
11 


78 
7th ed 


94 


76 
Gth ed, 


79 
7th ed. 


95 


82 § 15, DEFECTIVE VERBS. 


but mark with an asterisk those about which the grammarians, and 
in particular Thom. Mag. and Moeris, have been manifestly too 
fastidious. 

ayyéArw. The 2d Aor. Active and Passive, rare in the better 
authors, are in many passages suspicious, Bttm. IL. 94 f.; yet, see 
Schaf. Demosth. III. 175 ; Schoem. Isae. p. 89. In the N. T. we 
find avnyyéXn 1 Pet. i. 12, and (from the Sept.) Rom. xy. 21, 
duayyedn (from Sept.) Rom. ix. 17, carnyyéAn Acts xvii. 13. 

ayvume. On the Fut. catea&es Matt. xii. 20 and Aor. caréaka 
see § 12, 2. 

*dyo. On the Ist Aor. 7€a, which occurs 2 Pet. ii. 5 in the com- 
pound ézra£as, see Bttm. II. 98; Lob. p. 287, 785. In compounds 
also the form is not rare (2 Sam. xxii. 85; 1 Mace. ii. 67 ; Index 
to Malal. under a&yw; Schif. ind. ad Aesop. p. 135) even in good 
prose authors Her. 1, 190; 5,34; Xen. Hell. 2, 2, 20; Thuc. 2, 
ORshS. 5. 

*alipéw. The Fut. édo, in comp. aged Rev. xxii. 19, is rare, 
see Bttm. II. 100. Yet it is found in Agath. 269, 5, and in the 
Sept. frequently : Exod. v.8; Num. xi. 17; Deut. xii. 32; Job 
xxxv. 7; cf. also Menand. Byz. p. 816. In opposition to Reisig, 
Comm. crit. in Soph. Oed. C. p. 865, who claims it for Aristoph. 
aud Soph., see Hm. Oed. Col. 1454 and Eurip. Hel. p. 127. 

*axovm. Fut. axotow Matt. xii. 19; xiii. 14; Rom. x. 14; Jno. 
xvi. 13, for adxovcouat, which even in the N. T. is the more frequent, 
particularly with Luke, as Acts iii. 22 (vil. 37) ; xvii. 82; xxv. 22; 
xxvill. 28, also Jno. v. 28. “Axovcw occurs not only in poets 
(Anthol. gr. IL. 184 ; Jac. Orac. Sibyll. 8, 206, 845), but occasion- 
ally also in prose authors of the cow7, as Dion. H. 980, 4. Reisk., 
ef. Schiif. Demosth. II. 232; Wurm, Dinarch. p. 153 ; Bachmann, 
Lycophr. I. 92. In Sept. cf. Isa. vi. 9; 2 Sam. xiv. 16. 

adXNopae varies between Aor. 7Aaunv and 7»Acunv Bttm. I. 108. 
The same variation exists in the Codd. Acts xiv. 10 (even with 
double X), yet 7AaTo preponderates. 

‘dpaptadv@, auaptéw. Ist Aor. yudaptnoa for 2d Aor. juaptov 
Rom. v. 14,16; Matt. xvii. 15; Luke xvii.4; Rom. vi. 15 (1 Sam. 
xix.4; Lam. iii. 411) Thom. M. p. 420; Lob. p. 752; yet see Diod. 
S. 2,14 apaptyncas, Agath. 167,18. Also the Fut. Act. duaptica 
Matt. xviii. 21 (Sir. vii. 86; xxiv. 22; Dio Ch. 59, 20) is not very 
common. Cf. Monk, Eurip. Alcest. 159; Poppo, Thue. III. 1V. 361. 


1 Still, in the Sept. the 2d Aor. jjuaproy predominates. See especially 1 Kings viii. 
47, hudprouer, jvounoamer, NOuKhoaper. 


§ 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS. 93 


*avéyouat. Fut. avéfouar Matt. xvii. 17; Mark ix.19; Luke 
ix. 41; 2 Tim. iv. 3, for which Moeris from pure caprice would 
have dvacyijcouat. The former occurs very frequently; cf. e.g. 
Soph. Elect. 1017; Xen. C. 5, 1, 26; Plat. Phaedr. 239 a. 

avotyw. lst Aor. jvoréa Jno. ix. 17, 21, etc. for dvéwa (yet cf. 
Xen. Hell. 1, 5, 13), 2d Aor. Pass. nvotyn Rev. xv. 5, see § 12, 7. 

avavtd@. Fut. aravtjcw (for amavtjcopat) Mark xiv. 13 
(Diod. S. 18, 15). See Bttm. Il. 114; Mtth. Hurip. Suppl. 774. 

atvoxteivw. Ist Aor. amextavOn, aroxtavOjvar Rev. ii. 13; 
Sees; Xi.13; xiii, 10; xix. 21; Matt. xvi. 21; Luke ix. 22, 
etc.; cf. 1 Mace. ii. 9; 2 Macc. iv. 86. This form occurs indeed 
in Homer, but belongs peculiarly to later Greek prose (Dio C. 65, 
c.4; Menander, Hist. p. 284, 304, Bonn ed.). See Bttm. II. 227, 
Lob. 36, 757.1 (For the un-Attie Perf. améxrayxa see 2 Sam. iv. 
11; Bttm. 226 f.) 

amoNXvul. Fut. arodécw Matt. xxi. 41; Mark viii. 85; Jno. 
vi. 39; xii. 25; ef. Lucian. asin. 33; Long. pastor. 3, 17; Bttm. II. 
254. Yet see Lob. 746. (in 1 Cor i. 19, we find the regular form 
aTONO). ) 

apmwatw. Aor. jpmaynv 2 Cor. xii. 2,4 for ypmracOnv (Rev. xii. 
5) Thom. Mag. p.424; Moeris, p.50; Bttm. 1.372, Fut. dptayjcopae 
1 Thess. iv. 17. (Also dpzdcw for dpracouat Jno. x. 28 is said 
to be a rare form; it occurs, however, in Xen. mag. eq. 4, 17.) 
*avEavw. The primitive form avé Eph. ii. 21; Col. ii. 19 is 
frequent in Plato and Xen., Mtth. 541. 

Bapéw. From this comes not only BeSapypuévos Matt. xxvi. 43; 
Luke ix. 82, but also, contrary to Attic prose usage (Bttm. II. 88), 
Bapotvpevot 2 Cor. v. 4 (Mark xiv. 40), Bapeto@w 1 Tim. v. 16, and 
the Aor. éSap7@nv Luke xxi. 34; 2 Cor. i. 8, for which last the 
Greek literary diction employs éSapuvOnv (var. Luke as above). 

Backaivao. The Aor. Gal. iii. 1 is given in text. rec. éBacxave, 
but in many Codd. €Gacknve (without ane subs.) ; ef. Bttm. 1. 438. 
The latter in Dio C. 44, 89; Herod. 2,4, 11, and the later writers. 


1*Amoxtéevvecda (others amoxrévera) occurring in Rey. vi. 11, and amoxrévver (d&ro- 
«Tevet Var.) in 2 Cor. iii. 6 (Rev. xiii. 10) are considered as Aeolic, the Aecolians being 
accustomed to change e: before A, u, v, p,o into e, and double the following consonant ; 
therefore, krevyw for xrelvw, like oréppw for omelpw, Koenig, Gregor. Cor. pp. 587, 597 
Schaef., Mtth. I. 74; cf. Dindorf, praef. ad Aristoph. XII. p. 14. Also in Tob. i. 18; 
Wisd. xvi. 14, we find the first form among the var. A Present amoxrévw is probably 
not, with Wahl, to be assumed for Matt. x. 28 and Luke xii. 4; xiii. 34. ’Amoxrevdv- 
twv in those passages (if not to be taken for an Aor. Particip., see Fr. Mt. p. 383) may 
be considered as a corruption of amoxtevvdvtwy, which a few, but good, Codd. have, and 
which Lchm. and, in part, Tdf. have printed. Cf. besides, Bornem. ad Luc. p. 81. 


80) 


7th ed. 


re 


6th ed. 


6th ed. 


81 
Tth ed. 


oT 


84 § 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS. 


Bow. Ast Aor. Inf. Bidcaz in 1 Pet. iv. 2, for which the 2d Aor. 
Aievac is More usual in Attic, Bttm. II. 130 f., yet see Aristot. Nie. 
9, 8; Plutarch. Opp. Il. 367 f., and often in compounds, Steph. 
Thes. II. 260, ed. nov. The other forms of the 1st Aor. are more 
frequent, the participle @récas the most so. 

Bractave. Aor. éBrdcrynoa for €Bdactov Matt. xiii. 26; Jas. 
v.18 (Gen. i. 11; Num. xvii. 8, etc.; Acta apoc. p-, L12).9cf. 
Bttm. I]. 131. Since Aristotle’s time the form is not unusual 
even in the Greek literary language; Stephani Thes. II. 273. 

*yawéw. Aor. éyaunoa Mark vi. 17; Matt. xxii. 25; 1 Cor. vii. 9 
stands for the older form éynua (from yduw), as Luke xiv. 20; 
1 Cor. vii. 28 ; see Georgi, Hierocr. I. 29; Lob. 742. Yet éyaunoa 
is found (if not in Xen. Cyr. 8, 4, 20) Lucian, dial. deor. 5, 4; 
Apollodor. 8, 15,3. Better attested is éyaun@nv Mark x. 12 (though 
not fully established), 1 Cor. vii. 89; Lob. 742. 

yerdo. Fut. yetdow (for yeAdoopnar) Luke vi. 21. See Bttm. 
II. 85, 134. 

yiyvomat. Aor. Pass. éyern@nv for éyevounv Acts iv. 4; Col. 
iv. 11; 1 Thess. ii. 14, etce.; cf. Thom. M. p. 189, —an originally 
Doric form frequently found in the writers of the cow7, Lob. 109; 
Bttm. I. 136. 

déd@pmc. The Ist Aor. édwxa is avoided in the Ist and 2d Per. 
Plur. by Attic writers, and the 2d Aor. used instead, Bttm. I. 509. 
In the N. T., however, we find édéxayev 1 Thess. iv. 2, edéxare 
Matt. xxv. 35; Gal. iv. 15, etc. as in Demosth. On dec7n see § 14, 
1 Remark p. 79. 

*ScmKxo. Fut. duH&o for do£ouar Matt. xxiii. 34; Luke xxi.12; 
Bttm. I]. 154. Yet cf. Dem. Nausim. 633c¢.; Xen. An. 1, 4, 8 
CKrah. 1S) s)Cyni 65.35 12. | 

Suvayat. We have merely to remark here that besides the 
Aor. édvvy?nv, the (lon.) form duvac@nv, with the Augm. 7 too, 
is noted from B among the var. Matt. xvii. 16 (Bttm. II. 155). 

dvuw, dvvw. In several good Codd. we find Mark i. 32 the 1st 
Aor. édvca, which among the earlier Greeks has only a causative 
meaning, Bttm. 11.156. On the other hand the 1st Aor. dvvavtos, 
as inferior authorities give in Luke iv. 40, is found also Ael. 4,1; 
Pausan. 2, 11, 7. 

e/dw in the sense of know. Pret. oidawev Mark xi. 33; Jno. iii. 2; 
1 Cor. viii. 1, etc. for icpev (Poppo, Xen. An. 2,4, 6), oldare Mark 
x. 88; xiii. 838; 1 Cor. ix. 18; Phil. iv. 15 for tore, oiéacw Luke 
xi. 44; Jno. x. 5 for icact; see Bttm. I. 546 (yet cf. Aristoph. av. 


§ 15, DEFECTIVE VERBS. 85 


599; Xen. Oec. 20,14). The 2d Per. Sing. oidas 1 Cor. vii. 16 ; 
Jno. xxi. 15 is rather Ionic and Doric (for oic@a), yet it occurs 
Her. 4, 157; Xen. M. 4, 6,6; Hurip. Alc. 790, and frequently in 
later Greek ; see Lob. 236 sq. The 3d Per. Plur. of the Plup. is 
written #Secav Mark i. 34; Jno. ii. 9; xxi. 4, etc. for jdecar; 
Bttm. I. 547. . 

eimrety (2d Aor. eizrov). 1st Aor. eizra in the N.T. in the 2d Per. 
Sing. Matt. xxvi. 25; Mark xii. 32, and frequently. This person 
also occurs in Attic, Xen. Oec. 19, 14; Soph. Oed. C. 1509 (along 
with e@zres, as often in Plato); but it is originally Ionic, see Greg. 
Corinth. ed. Schaf. p. 481; Schiif. Dion. H. p. 486 sq. Imper. 
el7are Matt. x. 27; xxi. 5; Col. iv. 17, evratwoav Acts xxiv. 20; 
likewise very common in Attic, Plat. Lach. 187d; Xen. C. 3, 2, 28. 
We find, besides, in good Codd. 3d Per. Plur. Indic. eizav Matt. 
xii. 2; xvii. 24; Mark xi. 6; xii. 7,16; Luke v. 33; xix. 59; 
xx.2; Actsi. 11, 24; vi.2; xxviii. 21, etc. (Diod. S.16,14; Xen. 
H. 3, 5, 24 avar.), the Participle eizras Acts vii. 87; xxii. 24 which 
is chiefly Ionic, and even the more unusual 1st Per. era Heb. 


iii. 10; Acts xxvi. 15 (eirov, on the contrary, predominates in the 


N.T.); see Sturz, dial. alex. p.61.1_ Recent editors have adopted 
these forms wherever they are attested by several Codd. In com- 
position we find avecrdpnv 2 Cor. iv.2 (Her. 6,100), and wpoetrapev 
1 Thess. iv. 6 (elayev in the 1. Turin. Papyrus, p. 10).  Evdmév 
(not eizrov, see § 6, 1, k.) Acts xxviii. 26 (according to good Codd.) 
is to be regarded as 2d Aor. Imperative, a form which we now 
find also in the text of Mark xiii. 4; Luke x. 40, while in other 
passages eizé preponderates. The 1st Aor. Pass. of this verb, 
éppynOnv (from péw, see Bttm. II. 166), is sometimes written in MSS. 
of the N. T. Matt. v. 21, 31, 33 éppé@nv, as often in Codd. of later 
(non-Attic) authors, though this form occasionally appears in Attic 
writers also; Lob. 447 (but not in Plato, see Schneider, Plat. civ. 
fi. 0 sq: ). 

éxxéw, later form éxyiyw (Lob. 726). From it comes Fut. 
exyew for exyevow Bttm. I. 396. See § 13, 3. a. p. 77. 

* éXeao for éXeéw occurs in several good Codd. in various pas- 
sages of the N.T.,as Rom. ix. 16,18 €XewyTos, érea, Jude 25 €reaTe. 
Also Clem. Al. p. 54, Sylb. (the Florent. edition) has ded. Cf. 
also Etymol. M. 327,30. Similar is é\Aoyav Rom. v. 13 ; Philem. 
18, also in good Codd. The latter has been adopted by Lchm., 


1 Elray occurs also in the well-known Rosetta inscription, at the end of line 8. 


82 
Tth ed. 
19 


6th ed. 


98 


86 § 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS. 


and after him by Tdf. Fr., Rom. I. 311, declares all these forms 
to be errors in copying. 

€X«xw. From this we find, as regularly in Greek authors, a Pres. 
and an Imperf. Jas. ii. 6; Acts xxi. 80. On the other ratte for 
the Fut. €&€@ (Mtth. 573) the more unusual é\x’cw occurs Jno. 
xii. 32 from the other form éd«dw; cf. Job xxxix. 10. 

*érraivéw. Fut. émaiéow 1 Cor. xi. 22, for érawécouar; see 
Bttm. I. 3888. Yet cf. Xen. An. 5, 5,8; Himer. 20. In general, 
however, this form is not uncommon ; see Brunck, Gnom. p. 10, 
64; Schaef. Demosth. Hl. 465; Stallb. Plat. Symp. p. 139. 

*értopKéw. Fut. érvopxiow for émvopxyicopuat Matt. v. 33. See 
Bttm. I. 85. 
épxouat. The Fut. é€devcouas, both in the simple verb and its 
compounds, is of frequent occurrence, but particularly in later 
prose authors (Arrian. Al. 6, 12; Philostr. Apoll. 4, 4; Dio Chr. 
33, 410; Max. Tyr. 24, p. 295); in Attic, on the contrary, ezus is 
used instead (Phryn. p. 87 sq.; Thom. M. p. 88, 336). Yetin the 
earlier authors €Xevcouas also is not altogether infrequent, Her. 

i, 142; 5,125; Lys. Dardan. 12 (p. 233, Bremi) ; see in general 

fot: 37 sq. ; Schaef. Soph. Il. 823; cf. Elmsley, Eurip. Heracl. 210. 

Instead of the Imperf. ypydunv Mark i. 45; ii. 13; Jno. iv. 30; 

vi. 17, etc. Attic authors commonly use the lmperf. of eius, Bttm. | 

IJ. 183 ; yet see Bornem. Lue. p. 106, cf. Thuc. 4,120,121; Xen. 

An. 4, 6, 22. In Attic the imperatives 101, ive from eius are used 

for épyou, épyecOe Jno. i. 47. Also €pyopevos is said to be rare in 

earlier Attic, Bttm. as above; yet it occurs in Plato, Crit. c. 15. 

(Oe for €AjrAvOe Gal. iv. 4; Jno. xix. 39, etc. has been too hastily 

rejected by Thom. M. p. 418; see Sallier on the passage.) 

écgAiw. From the poetic form éc@ (Bttm. II. 185) we find 

the Participle é>@mv among the var. Mark i. 6; Luke vii. 33, 34; 

x. 7; xx. 47; xxii. 30, which Tdf., on the authority of (a few) 

good Codd., has received into the text; see Praef. p. 21. From 

pepe Cf vbev rex vile 10's xix Q6ek" eirex eee 
evpioxaw. Aor. Mid. edpaynp for ebpounv Heb. ix. 12, see § 13, 1 

(Paus. 7, 11, 1;°8, 30, 4, ete. ; cf Lobp. T30'sq. is eaten 

evpnoa appears in the Subjunctive form evpyons Rev. xviii. 14 and 
99 evpyowow ix. 6 (as at least many Codd. have it), unless we take 
83 these forms for the Subjunctive Fut. (see § 13, 1.e). Lob. 721, 
hel. however, produces a Participle ebprjcavtos. 

80  €ao. Fut. &jom Rom. vi. 2, 8; 2 Cor. xii. 4; 2 Timi 
hel. Jno. vi. 51, 58f. (cvdjow Rom. vite ; 2 Tim. ii. 11), Sfoouae Matt. 


§ 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS. 87 


iv. 4; Mark v. 23; Jno. vi. 51; xi. 25, etc. Ist Aor. é&yoa Rev. 
ii. 8; Luke xv. 24; Rom. vii. 9, etc. (and often in Sept.). These 
are principally later forms, which occur but seldom in early 
authors (see Bttm. II. 192). The Aor. is peculiar to later writers. 
Earlier authors used in the Fut. and Aor. the corresponding tenses 
of Biow. 

Hxo. Krom the Ist Aor. 7€a, a later form, Bttm. IT. 194; Lob. 
744, we find the Subjunctive #&wov Rev. iii. 9, where, however, 
better Codd. have the Fut. #£€o0veo.. The Preter. #xa (Deut. xxxii. 
17; Phot. biblioth. 222; Malal. pp. 186 and 137; Leo Gramm. p. 
98, etc.; Lob. 744) in the form jjxace Mark viii. 3 is by no means 
established, though Lehm has adopted it. 

@arrw. 2d Aor. avefarere Phil. iv. 10, a form not occurring 
in prose, and everywhere rare, Bttm. I. 195. 

totnpt. The Pres. ictavw Rom. iii. 31, and in composition 
ouviotave 2 Cor. iii. 1 (iv. 2); v.12; vi.4; x.12,18; Gal. ii*18, 
was used in Attic (Mtth. I. 482), but more frequently in later 
Greek (e.g. Cinnam. 214 and 256 égiotavey). On the later form 
iataw see § 14, 1, f. p. 78. 

Katakaliw. Fut. cataxajocopar 1 Cor. iii. 15; 2 Pet. iii. 10 
(from Aor. catexanv Her. 1, 51; 4, 79) for cataxavOyncopar Rev. 
xviii. 8, which the Attics use, see Thom. M. p.511; Bttm. IT. 211. 

katanreimw. Ist Aor. catéreua Acts vi. 2; Lob. 714. 

kepadvyvupe. Perf. Pass. xexépacuar Rev. xiv. 10, for the more 
usual xéxpayar; see Bttm. Il. 214. Analogous is the Participle 
ovyKexepacpévous Heb. iv. 2, in very good Codd. 

Kepdaivw. Aor. éxépdnoa Matt. xxv. 20; xvili. 15, Kepdjoa 
Acts. xxvii. 21, xepdjoas Luke ix. 25, xepdjow Subj. 1 Cor. ix. 19, 
20; Matt. xvi. 26 and frequently, forms peculiar to Ionic prase, 
Bttm. I. 215; Lob. 740. In Attic the verb is inflected regularly ; 
Gil Cor. ix« 21. 

krXaiw. Fut. csavow (properly Doric) for cravcopwar (as in 
Sept. always) Luke vi. 25; Jno. xvi. 20; Rev. xviii. 9; cf. Babr. 
98,9; Bttm. I. 85, 220. | 

KNéTToO. Fut. creo for creyrouas Matt. xix.18; Rom. xiii. 9, 
Bttm. I. 85,221. In Sept. never, but in Lucian, dial. deor. 7, 4. 

kpafo. Fut. cpa&» Luke xix. 40 according to good authorities 
for xexpad€ouat (as always in Sept.), Aor. éxpata for éxpayov Matt. 100 
Vill. 29; xx. 30, etc., Bttm. I. 228. 

— *epémapacr. The form é&expéuero Luke xix. 48 in Codd. B [and 
Sin.] of which Griesb. and Schulz take no notice, is undoubtedly 
a mistake of the transcriber. Lchm. also has not noticed it. 


88 § 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS. 


84 xpvaro. 2d Aor. Act. expufov Luke i. 24 (Phot. bibliothec. 

the Tp. 143, Bekk.), see Bttm. II. 226. 

Kkvw (to be pregnant) has the Fut. and Aor. regular in the forms 
Kunow, exvnoa (Bttm. II. 230). So Jas. i. 18 azexinoe. In the 
Pres. cvéw occurs, but not, as Hustath. p. 1548, 20 insists, only in 
the sense of bring forth ; see Lob. Aiac. p. 182 sq. and paralip. 556. 

81 Hence in Jas. i. 15 asroxve? may be written as well as dzroxver, but 

bh el it is not necessary to prefer the former on account of the form of 
the Aorist in vs. 18. The N.T. Lexicons recognize only the form 
KUEW. 

Naoko. To this belongs the Aor. é\axnoa Acts i. 18, usually 
referred to the Doric Pres. Aaxéw; but Bttm. II. 233 derives it 
directly from the 2d Aor. XNaxeiv, universally in use in Attic. 

*ucatvo@ has Tit. i. 15, according to good Codd., in the Perf. 
Par ae pewtappévor for the usual peptacpévor, cf. Lith 35. 
vir Jno. xiii. 6,14, virtowar Matt. xv. 2. Instead of this 
Pres. the earlier writers use vifw ; see Bttm. II. 249; Lob. 241. 
otktetpo. Fut. otxreipjyow Rom. ix. 15 (as if from oixrecpéw) 
for ofkrep@ ; cf. Ps. ci. 15; Jer. xxi. 7; Mic. vii. 19, ete. ; also in 
the Byzantines, see Lob. 741. 

opvve for duvupe (Bttm. IT. 255) Matt. xxiii. 20 ff; xxvi. 74; 
Heb. vi. 16; Jas. v.12. But in the better MSS. we find Mark 
xiv. 71 dpuvdvar for durvecv, and Griesb. received it into the text. 

*opaw. Imperf. Mid. @paynv Acts iil. 25 (from Ps. xvi.), for 
which éwpéunv was used in Attic (Bttm. 1.325). From orrecOat 
we find Luke xiii. 28, though not without var., the Ist Aor. Subj. 
ovnoGe, which occurs in Liban. and the Byzantines ; see Lob. 734. 

mati€m. Aor. évérravEa Matt. xx. 19; xxvii. 81 (Sept. Prov. 
xxill. 35), for which in Attic éraca was used; see Bttm. I. 872. 
But éracéa, watEar Lucian, dial. deor. 6, 4, and encom. Demosth. 
15; cf. V. Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 8378; and Lob. 240. The Fut. 
maiém Anacr. 24, 8. 

métowat. Part. metmpevov Rey. xiv. 6 in B for weropevor, from 
the form meraouae which occurs only in Ionic (Her. 8, 111) and 
later writers (e.g. Lucian, dial. mort. 15,3 var.), see Bttm. II. 271. 
The Pres. wrérawas, found even in Pindar, is cited by Wetst. and 
Matthai among the var, Rev. xii. 14. 

101 wivw. From the Fut. rioua: the complete form riecar is es- 
tablished in Luke xvii. 8 (Bttm. I. 347), as in the very same 
passage dayeoas from dayouat. Both are found also in Ezek. 
xii. 18; Ruth i. 9,14. On the Inf. wiv Jno. iv. 9, which on the 


§ 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS. 89 


authority of good Codd. [also Sin.*] Lchm. and Tdf. [ed. II.] have 
inserted in the text, see Fr. de crit. conformat. etc. p. 27 sq. Only 
the form zrety is found in later writers, and this reading of several 85 
Codd. [and Tdf. ed. VII.] might perhaps be adopted, if at least Mhet 
Cod. A vs. 7, 10 had not distinctly ety, thus showing iv vs. 9 to 
be a mistake of the transcriber. 

mimtw. Aor. éreca, see § 13, 1 p. 73. 

pé@. Fut. pevow Jno. vii. 38 for pedcouar. In Attic, however, 
puyncopar is the usual form, Lob. 739; Bttm. Hl. 287. (As to the 
1st Aor. pevodtwcay Cant. iv. 16, also used only in later Greek, 
ef. Lob. 739.) The regular and usual 2d Aor. éppvnv occurs in 
the compound vrapapuapev Heb. ii. 1. 

cartifw. Fut. cadrricw for cadriy&w 1 Cor. xv. 52, cf. also 82 
Mechan. vett. p. 201 (Num. x. 3; also Ist Aor. éoddmica for Med. 
éoaddruyEa Xen. An. 1, 2,17 is frequent in Sept.), see Phryn. 191; 
Thom. M. p. 789. 

onpaive. ist Aor. éonuava Acts xi. 28; xxv. 27 (Judge. vii. 
21; Esth. ii. 22; Plutarch, Aristid. 19; Menandri Byz. hist. pp. 
308, 309, 358; Act. Thom. p. 32), which is found indeed even in 
Xen. Hell. 2, 1, 28, but for which in early Attic éonunva was the 
usual form, see Bttm. I. 438; Lob. 24. Cf. under daivo. 

aoKxémrouwat. The Pres. (Heb. ii. 6; Jas.i. 27; cf. Ps. viii. 5; 
1 Sam. xi. 8; xv. 4, etc.) and Imperf. occur but seldom in Attic, 
Bttm. I. 291. 
_ *erovbdto. Fut. orovédco for the usual crovddcopas 2 Pet. 

1.15; Bttm. IT. 85. | 

atnpifw. Imperat. Aor. according to good Codd. is erypicov 
Luke xxii. 82; Rev. iii. 2, and Fut. 2 Thess. iii. 3 in B ornpice, 
instead of the forms preferred by Greek authors, or/jpufov and 
ornpife, Bttm. 1. 872; cf. Judg. xix. 5; Ezek. xx. 46, and often ; 
also éoryjpica 1 Macc. xiv. 14, ete. ; 

tuyxyave@. Of the Perf. we find Heb. viii. 6 in text. ree. the 
(properly Ionic, then Attic, Bttm. II. 301) form rérevye; but in 
other Codd. the usual Attic rérvyn«e, and in A D [Sin."] et al. réruyxe. 
On the latter see Lob. 395. 

payetv. Fut. dayowa Jas. v. 3; Rey. xvii. 16 [Jno. ii. 17] 
(Gen. xxvii. 25; Exod. xii. 8, etc.), whence 2d Per. dayecas Luke 
xvii. 8. For this Greek authors use éSouau from éw, Bttm. IT. 185. 

paive. ist Aor. Inf. émibavar (émipjvar) Luke i. 79, contrary 
to the best usage. In later Greek, however, similar forms occur ; 
Lob. 26; Thilo, Acta Thom. 49 sq. (Aelian, anim. 2,11; and epil. 102 
p. 896, Jac.). 


86 
Tth ed, 


83 
6th ed. 


103 


90 ’ §15, DEFECTIVE VERBS. 


davokw. Hence émidpaice Eph. v.14; cf. Gen. xliv.8; Judg. 
xvi. 2; 1Sam. xiv. 36; Judith xiv.2. As to the analogical proof 
of this form, not found in Greek authors, by means of the Subs. 
uTrodavots, see Bttm. IT. 312. 

*dépw. Aor. Partic. évéyxas Acts v. 2; xiv.13 (évéyxavtes Luke 
xv. 23 var.) for éveyxwv Bttm. II. 818; yet see Xen. M. 1, 2, 53; 
Demosth. Timoth. 703 c¢.; Isocr. paneg. 40. The Indic. veya 
occurs frequently in Attic, as also the Imperat. forms with a Jno. 
xxiel0: 

*d@avw. According to several Atticists the 2d Aor. €Onv is to 
be preferred to the Ist Aor. éf@aca, which, however, often occurs 
even in Attic writers (Bttm. IJ. 816), and prevails in the N. T. 
Matt. xii. 28; Rom. ix..31; 2 Cor. x. 14; Phil. ii. 16g 
ii. 16. In the last passage several Codd. have the Perf. ép@axe. 

puw. 2d Aor. Pass. éfunv, duets Luke viii. 6, 7, 8 (since Hip- 
pocrat. very much used), for which the Attics employ the 2d Aor. 
Act. ébuv, dus; see Bttm. II. 321. In Matt. xxiv. 82 and Mark 
xiii. 28 very good Codd. have ékd@un (Aor. Pass. Subj.) for éxpuy ; 
and the former reading may be regarded as preferable ; see Fr. 
Mare. 578 sq. 

yalipw. Fut. yapyoouar for yarpjow Luke i. 14; Jno. xvi. 20, 
22; Phil. i. 18 (Hab. i. 165 Zech. x. 7 ; Ps. xcv. 12 \ana@eGieue 
see Moer. 120; Thom. Mag. 910; Lob. 740; Bttm. Il. 822. It 
occurs also Diod. Exc. Vat. p. 95. 

*vaplCopat. Fut. yapicouar Rom. viii. 82 is the non-Attic 
form for yaptovpat. 

®0éw. Aor. arécato! Acts vii. 27, 39 (Mic. iv. 6; Lam. ii. 7 
and often, Dion. H. Il. 759), for which the better writers used 
éocato with syllabic augment (Thom. M. p. 403; Pol. 2, 69, 9; 
15, 31,12). 1st Aor. Pass. az@oOnv Ps. Ixxxvii. 6; cf. Xen. Hell. 
4, 8,12; Dio C. 87,47, Also Aor. Act. eEacev Acts vii. 45 for 
which some Codd. have é&woev (Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I.181). That 
remark, however, respecting the syll. augm. holds strictly only of 
the Attic authors; see Poppo, Thue. HI. I. 407. 

*@pvéowat. Ast Aor. wvnoduny Acts vii. 16, as frequently in 
writers of the «ow (e.g. Plut., Pausan.), Lob. 189. In Attic 
émpianv is preferred. ’ 

Note. The later verbal forms are not always used in the N. T. where 
they might be expected. We find for instance miopa: 2d Fut. from tive, 


1 After the Fut. éow (from &@w). The Aorist form from the other Fut. @@jow occurs 
only in later authors, as e.g. the Particip. etsw@jcas in Cinnam. p. 193. 


§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS. 91 


and not modo Rey. xiv. 10 (see Bttm. I. 395) ; Aor. xowacar Mark vil. 
15, 18 etc.; Moeris, ed. Piers. p. 434; Locella, Xen. Ephes. p. 254; Fut. 
Pevéouat, Garpdacona, and not gevgw, Gavpacw (Bttm. I. 85). Among 
the various readings occurs Heb. iv. 15 zereipayévoy from the older form 
7epdw instead of rerepacpévoy from weipacw; the former Tdf. has received 
into the text. 

That the same forms sometimes come by inflection from entirely differ- 
ent verbs is well known; we shall only specify éfévevoe Jno. v. 13, which 
grammatically may come equally from éxvéw (Bttm. IJ. 248) and from 
EKVEVU. 


§16, FORMATION OF WORDS.1 


The N.'T. contains a number of words never occurring in Greek 
authors, but borrowed from the spoken language of the time, and 
in part new formations (particularly in the writings of Paul). 
The greater the number of these peculiar forms, the more necessary 
it becomes to compare them with the established principles of 
Greek derivation (from stems). In doing this, it will be instructive 
to note analogies not altogether unknown to Greek authors, but 
far more prominent in the idiom of the N.T. Our remarks will be 
founded on the luminous exposition of Bttm., which comprehends 
whatever is of essential importance (II. § 118 ff.), cf. Krii. § 41 ff 


1. A. DERIVATION BY TERMINATIONS. a. VERBS: Of 
derivative verbs (mostly but not entirely from nouns) those in ow 
and «fw are peculiarly frequent. Forms in ow partly superseded 
those in evw or wSw; as, dexatow (écxatevw Xen. An. 5, 3, 9, etc.), 
éfovdevow (é€ovderifm in Plutarch, yet see in general Lob. 182), 
capow (for caipw Lob. 89), ceparaow (xeharifw Lob. 95), dvvayow 
and évévvayow (Lob. 605, note), adutvew (adurvif Lob. 224), 
avakawwow (avaxawitw Isocr. Areop. ¢. 3), besides peatow, dor.ow. 
From dexatow comes azrodexatow ; With adutvow compare Kaburrvew 
Xen. M. 2,1, 30. Kpataidw occurs also for xpativa, cPevow for 
olevéw, dvactatovy for avactatov wovciv; but yapiTtow is formed 
from yapis, dvvatow from dsvvayis (Lob. Phryn. 605). 

Verbs in vf come from the most diverse stems: dpOpifw from 

<OpOpos, aixparwrifo from aiypdrwros, devrywaTito from detypa, 


1 See Ph. Cattieri, Gazophylacium Graecor. (1651, 1708) ed. F. LZ. Abresch (Utr. 1757) 
L. B. 1809, 8vo., but especially Bétm. ausf. Gr. IT. 382 ff. (with Lobeck’s additions), Lobeck, 
Parerga to Phryn., and his other works referred to above, p. 3. Among expository 
works we must mention chiefly Selecta e Scholis Valckenarii. Specimens of later for- 
mations are to be found especially in the Byzantine authors. 


87 
7th ed. 


84 
6th ed. 


104 


92 § 16. FORMATION OF WORDS. 


merexilw from médexus, wuxtnpiGw from puxtyp, cpupvivw, avepito, 
drrakivo, iwatifw, avabeuatifm (also in Byzantine authors), dea- 
tpiGw (Cinnam. p. 218), omrayxviGopar, aipetifo, cuppopditw (Phil. 
iii. 10 according to good Codd.). Sxopritm (Svacxoprifw) has no 
distinct stem in the Greek literary language; it was, however, a 
provincial, perhaps a Macedonic, form (Lob. 218). 
As to verbs in ew from names of nations and persons, see Bttm. 
I]. 885. We have only to mention fovdaifw, with which compare 
the later word davidigw, Leo Gram. p. 447. 
There are also a few verbs in aw seldom or never occurring 
elsewhere, ¢.g. vnmidlw, cwidko (o7n0w). 
88 Also in eva, as peoitedm, payeto, eyxparevoual, aiyxpadwTevo 
Tth ed. (Lob. 442), wayiwevm, yuprntedo. The last is from yupvyrns, 
which, according to Bttm. II. 431, is only to be vindicated as a 
collateral form of yuprvyns. From yupvos, on the other hand, one 
would expect yusvirns, and accordingly the best Codd. [Sin. also] 
have 1 Cor. iv. 11 yupzuetevw, which therefore we must not, with 
Fr. (conform. crit. p. 21) and Mey., take for an error of the copyist.! 
Among verbs in vv@, which signify a rendering what the 
(concrete) root denotes (as (Aapuveu, i.e. tXapov rrovety) Bttm. II. 
387, cxAnpvvw is to be noticed as a collateral form of cxdypow, 
which never occurs in the N. T. 
Verbs in atv@ (Aevaiva, Enpaiva, evppaivw Bttm. II. 65 f. ; Lob. 
prolegg. pathol. 87) require no special remark. 
The formation of verbs in @@, from primitives in ¢@, which is 
not unknown in Attic (Bttm. IJ. 61; Lob. 151), seems to have 
85 been practised more frequently in later Greek ; v700, cvybw, adr7Ia, 
Chel. sre not used at least by the earlier writers. Yet cf. Lob. 254. 
Verbs in ox (except evpicxw and duddacKw) are rare even in 
105 the N. T. (Bttm. IT. 59f.). We find ynpacxw as an inchoative 
(Bttm. II. 893), but pedcxw, causative from peOvm, only in the 
Pass. Tayuicxw, equivalent to yauitw, is sufficiently attested only 
in Luke xx. 34. Lastly, we note as altogether singular in forma- 
tion ypyyopéw (from the Perf. éypyyopa), with its cognate éypnyopew, 
Lob. 119; Bttm. IT. 158. With this verb,? derived from a redu- 
plicated Perfect, may be compared, however, émixeyerpéw Papyri 
Taurin.:7, ‘lin. 7. 
1 Cf, Lob. Soph. Ai. p. 387. *OAodpedw Heb. xi. 28 is, in some good Codd., written 
bAcOpedw (from bAcOpos), and LIchm., and with him Tdf., has so printed. I am not 
aware that the latter form of this Alexandrian word has been preserved anywhere else. 


2 Déderlein on reduplication in Greek and Latin derivation in his Reden und Auf- 
satze II. no. 2. 


§ 16, FORMATION OF WORDS. 93 


To derivative verbs in evw belongs also zapaPoActecOa Phil. ii. 30, 
(which Griesb., Lchm., and others, agreeably to the weightiest critical 
evidence, have admitted into the text). From wapaBodos might have been 
formed most naturally rapaBoAciobar; but the termination evw was selected 
to make the verb signify wapaBodov civar, as érurxorevew in later Greek 
denotes éricxorov eivat (Lob. 591), and, what is more to the purpose, 
there is teprepevecOaur from zéprepos. It would be unwarrantable to grant 
admission to zapaPBoAcerPar only on the assumption of a simple verb 
BodeverPat, (which certainly does not occur). 


2. b. Supstantives:! Derived a. from Verbs (cf. Lob. paralip. 
p- 897 sqq. and particularly lib. 3 of technologia p. 253 sqq.). 

With the termination pos (Bttm. Il. 398) from a verb in afw 
is to be noted ayacpuos which does not occur in Greek authors, 
like recpacpos from trepdfw, évradiacuos from &radiafo ; from 
verbs in vf we find paKapio pos, overora tos ( Lob. 551), Bacavicpos, 


89 


Tapopyic os, pavticpos (pavTifew), enGParta pas (caBBarifew), ith ed. 


cwdppovic 40s, aTredeypL0s. 

_ The most numerous formations, however, are those in ya (Lob. 
as above 391 sqq.) and ous, the former mostly confined to the N. T. 
yet always conformed to Greek analogy ; as, Bamticpa, paticpa 
from Barrigfew etc., wedoua from WebderPat, tepatevpa, KaTadupa 
(xatadvew), also é&paua (Lob. 64), acbevnua, avt\npwa, avtand- 
AaYLA, ATOTKiATMLA, TPOSKoppa, aTavyacpua, HTTHMA, aiTnMa, KATOP- 
Gaya, ctepéwua from contract verbs (like ¢povnua, etc.), mostly 
in the sense of product or state. Only dvtAnua denotes an imple- 
ment (as substantives in wos often do), and «atadvya the place 
of xatadvew (Eustath. Odyss. p. 146, 33). 

Substantives in ov, particularly numerous in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, nearly all belong to literary Greek. Only 0édnows, Kata- 
TAVIS, TPOSKVGIS,” aTOAUTpwaIS, SiKalwols, Biwots, TeTOlOnots Lob. 
295 (émuroPnais) require notice. As to wapacxevy, formed from 
the stem of a verb in afw, see Bttm. II. 404. As to olxodou2, see 
Lob. 490. As to the very common dsaOyj«n (from Ist Aor. of 
riHévat), see Bttm. Il. 401; Lob. paralip. 374. 

Among abstract nouns from verbs are some in povy. We find 
in the N. T. rancor Bttm. 1.405. On the contrary, ériurncpovn 
comes directly from é7iAjcpov. Tewcpovn, however (also in 


1 Cf. G. Curtius, de nomin. gr. formatione linguar. cognat. ratione habita. Berol. 1842 
(Zeitschr. f. Alterth. 1846, no. 68f.). 

2 The form xvoia appears to have been employed only in words compounded with 
other nouns. Compare the N. T. word aiuarexxvola (Leo Gramm. p. 287) with aiua- 
toxvola (Theophan. p. 510), pwroxvola and piveyxvola. 


106 


86 


6th ed. 


94 § 16, FORMATION OF WORDS. 


Pachym. II. 100 and 120), is another form of zetoua, though 
me.opovn may be referred directly to wei8w, as Ans pov to TANOo. 
Among abstract nouns in the N.T. derived from verbs in evo 
must be mentioned épiGeca.} 

Verbal nouns with a concrete signification present little that is 
peculiar. From verbs in ao, fw, vfw, we find in the N. T. «riorns 
(paroxyt.) and the oxytones (Bttm. II. 408) Biacrns, BartiorHs, 
MEplLaTns, EvayyedlaTHS, yoyyvoTys, and éAAnvioTHs,? forms rare or 

gg unknown elsewhere. Only xoddvBiorys, (which is not peculiar 

ithe. however to the N.T.), cannot be traced to a verb xodAduBigew. 
From tedevovv we have terewwr7s (cf. S&yrwrHs and AvtTpwTis). 
From qmposxuveity comes mposkyvntns (Constant. Man. 4670). On 
erevourns see Bttm. I1.411. The earlier writers prefer duaxtyp to 
duwxTys ; just as doTns appears as a secondary form by the side of 
do77p. 

Very strange would be the formation of catavu&s from xata- 
vuotatw Rom. xi. 8 (from Sept.) as was formerly supposed. But 
its connection with cataviccewy is evident from Dan. x. 9, Theod., 
and thus it very probably denotes stupefaction (n227m Ps. Ix. 5), 
and thence torpor; see Fr. Excur. Rom. II. 558 sqq. 

107 From careless pronunciation arose the form tapeiov, as all good 
Codd. have Luke xii. 24 and many Codd. have Matt. vi. 6, for 
Tapuetov (from taptevw) see Lob. Phryn. 493 and paralip. 28, and 
the compound yAwoooxopoy for yAwoookopmetoy Or YyAwoooKopLoV 
(from xowéw) without var., see Lob. 98 sq. 

B. From Adjectives. Under this head come, 

Various abstract nouns in tn, oTns, as aytoTns, ayvoTns, abed- 
gotns (Leo Gramm. p. 464), adporns, amdortns, tkavoTns, apedorns 
(adéreva in earlier authors), cxAnpétns, TyuLoTns, TENELOTNS, MaTAaL- 
OTNS, YUMVOTNS, MEYAAELOTHS, KUpLOTHS, alaxXpoTNsS, TLOTHS (ayaBorns 
Sept.), see Lob. 850 sqq. (dxa@aptns Rev. xvii. 4 is not well 
attested) ; 


1 The connection of épidefa with &pis is not prevented by the @ alone (for that occurs 
in the cognates épéOew, epedi¢e), but its whole structure is such that it can only be 
referred to épidedw. But Fr. Rom. I. 143 sqq. has satisfactorily shown that ép:dela even 
in the N. T. is nothing else than the ép:defa, labor for wages, already known to the Greeks. 
Among earlier writers see Stolberg, de soloec. N. T. p. 136 sqq. 

2 ‘EAAnvicew signifies in general to comport one’s self as a Greek (Diog. L. I. 102), and 
most usually to speak Greek, especially of foreigners, Strabo 14, 662; then often it has 
no unfavorable secondary meaning, (erroneously de Wette, Bibel, reprinted from the 
Hall. Encycl. 8. 17), Xen. A. 7, 3, 25; Strabo 2, 98. ‘EAAnviarhs, therefore, —a sub- 
stantive which never occurs in Greek authors, — means very naturally a Greek-speaking 
non-Gireek (e.g. a Jew). That in Christian Greek phraseology €AAnvi¢ew also signifies 
to be a heathen (e.g. in Malalas p. 449) is a fact lying beyond our present inquiry. 


§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS. | 95 


And such substantives in ovvn (denoting mental qualities) as 
érenuootyn and daoxnuootvn (from érejpwov and acynuov, cf. 
cwoppoctvn from cwdpev), or ayiwovvn, ayabwouvrn, lepwovrn, 
peyadrootvn, With w, because the penult of the adjectives is short 
(Etym. M. p. 275, 44) !—all later words found only in Hellenistic 
writers ; cf. in general Lob. prolegg. pathol. p. 235 sqq. 

_ Also among those in va which come from adjectives in os, pos 

(Bttm, II. 415) are many later formations (Lob. 843) ; as, édappia 
(like aicypéa in Eustath. from aicypos) ; and as evdamovia from 
- evdaiuwv, so 2 Pet. ii. 16 rapadpovia from mapadpwv (Lob. prolegg. 
pathol. p. 238); some Codd., however, have the more usual 
Tapappocvvn.” | 

Lastly, we often find Neuters of adjectives in vos used as substan- 
tives; as, broti-yiov, peOopiov, broAjviov, chay.ov (mpospayior), 
etc., see Fr. Priilimin. 8. 42. 
yy. From other Substantives (Bitm. I. 420 ff.) are derived eiéde- 
Nelo (eldwrov), éXavov (dala), purov Matt. xxiv. 41 var. (uvros, 
pvr) Bttm. I. 422f. and the Fem. Baciwooa (Bttm. I. 427). 
’"Adedpwv, peculiar to the N.T., comes from édpa. The Gentile 
Fem. from ®oi£ is Polvicca; therefore also Mark vii. 26 Supo- 
doivicca, as from KiivE comes Kiiooa (Bttm. 11.427). Perhaps, 
however, the Fem. was also formed from the name of the country 
Powixn; for, a large number of good Codd. [Sin. also] have in 
the above passage in Mark Supodouwikioca, cf. Fritzsche, and this 
might come directly from an original form ®ouixis, as Baciiicoa 
is connected with Bacvdis, and, at least among the Romans, Scy- 
thissa occurs for X«v@is, or in later Greek fuddxicca by the side 
of @uvdakis. See in general Lob. prolegg. pathol. p. 413 sqq. 

To the later and Latinizing formation belong, of Gentile and 
Patronymic nouns, “Hpwévaves Matt. xxii. 16 and Xpuctiavds Acts 
xi. 26, etc. (cf. Kavcapiavds Arrian. Epict. 1, 19,19; 3, 24, 117). 
In the earlier language, the termination avos was employed only 


in forming Gentile names from cities and countries not Greek ; 
Bttm. I. 429. 


‘ Yet in Glycas, p.11, even in the later edition, weyadootvn is printed. Bttm. IT. 420, 
shows that nearly all substantives in wrtvn belong to the later language. On the ter- 
mination guvy in general, see Aufrecht in the Berl. Zeitschr. f. vergleich. Sprachforsch. 
6 Heft; [and on the termination trys G. Bithler, das griech. Secundirsuffix rns. Ein 
Beitrag z. Lehre v. d. Wortbildung. Gott. 1858. 8vo.]. 

2 Of substantives derived from adjectives in ys, some, as is well known, end in ia 
instead of era (Bttm. II. 416). In others, the spelling varies between sa and ea, as in 
kaxomabia (cf. Poppo, Thuc. II. I. 154. Lilendt, praef. ad Arrian. p. 30sqq. Weber, 
Demosth. p. 511). In regard to this word, however, the preponderance is for eta. 


87 
6th ed, 


91 
Tth ed. 


108 


88 


6th ed, 


109 


92 
Tth ed. 


96 § 16, FORMATION OF WORDS. 


Among Diminutives deserves to be mentioned SiBrapiszov, pri- 
marily from PuPrdpiov, quoted by Pollux, instead of the older 
forms Biybrcdwoy and BiBrddpuov (like (uaridprov from (waridiov), 
Lob. pathol. 281. Ivvaixdpiov follows the usual analogy, but 
seems to have been of rare occurrence in Greek authors; the same 
may be said of @tdpuov Mark xiv. 47; Jno, xviii. 10, cawdpuov, 
maapiov. On diminutives in voy (of which yey/ov is unquestion-. 
ably a later form), see Fr. Prilim. 8. 43, and a dissertation De 
vocib. in ¢ov trisyllabis by Janson in Jahn’s Archiv VII. 485 ff. 

Substantives in nptov are properly Neuters of adjectives (Bttm. IT. 412 f.); 
as, tAaoryplov, Puparyptov, pvrakrjptov. (Such become still more numerous 
in later writers, e.g. dvaxaAvmtynpiov Niceph. Gregor. p. 667, denrjptov 
Cedren. Il. 377, @avaripuov ibid. I. 679, taparnprov I. 190, etc.) vAa- 
kryptos, directly from ¢vAaxrip, has like it an active meaning — guarding, 
protecting. “Ikacryp.ov properly signifies something that propitiates, but 
may be applied to the place where the propitiation is accomplished (just 
as vAaxrypiov denotes a guard-post), and consequently to the cover of 
the ark of the covenant. In. Rom. iii. 25 the signification propitiatory 
offering (Index to 'Theoph. contin.) is equally appropriate, which Philippi 
without sufficient reason has recently denied. A Fem. subst. of the same 
sort is Cevxrypia (cf. orumrnpia). wrypia is connected immediately with 
cup; side by side with it occurs owrnptov also as a substantive. “Yzepaor, 
that is izepwiov, is to be regarded in like manner as a Neuter from izepwios, 
which, like zarpdos from zaryp, is formed from the preposition wzép, for 
there is no intermediate adjective vrepos. 


3. c. ADJECTIVES: a. To adjectives derived directly from a verbal 
root belongs the fully established mesos 1 Cor. ii. 4; ef. éd05 from 
dw, Booxos from Bock, hevdos from (heidm) peiSouat (Lob. Phryn. 
p- 484). These derivatives are all oxytones, dayos alone occurring 
in the grammarians as also a paroxytone (Lob. paralip. 185), and 
it is written as such in the N. T. 

Among those in wdés, dwaptwdos is the most frequent (Bttm. IL 
448). To be referred to the same formation, however, is e/dwAov 
Neut. from e’dwros (Lob. pathol. p. 134). 

Verbals in ros (Bttm. J. 443 ff.; Lob. paralip. 478 sq.; Mois- 
zisstzig, de adject. graec. verbal. Goa 1844, 4to.) correspond in 
signification, sometimes to the Latin participle in tus, as yvwortos 
notus, otTevtos saginatus, amaldevtos (untrained, awkward) ef. 
Jeomrvevaos inspiratus 1; sometimes to adjectives in bilis, as opatos, 


1 That this word in 2 Tim. iii. 16 is to be taken in a passive sense, there can be no 
doubt; this acceptation is confirmed by gumvevoros, though several derivatives of the 
same class have an active signification, as evrvevoros, &mrvevoros. 


§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS. OT 


dusBdoTaKTOS, avEKTOS, AKATATXETOS, AkaTaTTaVaTOS, avEKdinyNTOS, 
avekrdnntos ; sometimes they have an active meaning (Fr. Rom. 
II. 185), as a@mrraicros not stwmbling, i.e. not sinning (certainly, 
however, not adddnTos Rom. viii. 26). 

"Ameipaoros (like the azeiparos usual in Greek authors) means 
either untempted, or that cannot be tempted ; both amount to the 
_ same thing in Jas. i. 13. Only qwa@nros Acts xxvi. 23, signifies 
who is to suffer ; cf. devetos, mpaxrtos Aristot. de anima 38,9, p. 64 
Sylb.; Cattier, gazophyl. p. 84. The verbal mposxAvtos, akin to 
the forms émnAvs, wéTnAvs, is an extended formation of which no 
example is to be found in classic Greek. 

8. Among adjectives derived from other adjectives (or parti- 
ciples) a few are deserving of special notice. Such are zrepiovcws, 
émtovatos, like éxovowos, é0eXovavos (Lob. Phryn. p. 4sq.), which 
are extended formations from éxov and éédwyr like the feminines 
éxovea, eHedovca ; but érvovcvos [according to Leo Meyer, in Kuhn’s 
Ztschr. fiir vergleichende Sprachforschung. Bd. VII. Berl. 1858. 
pp. 424 sq. 428, formed by means of the suffix vo from ézi and ovr, 
and that denoting “ what is ézv,” so that aptos émvovovos signifies 
“bread that is serviceable, or suited, or necessary for life, for 
subsistence, that which answers our needs, is adequate for them ”’ | 
has probably direct relation to the Fem. (7) émwodca sc. nepa, and 
accordingly apros émvovowos means bread for the following day, cf. 
Stolberg, diss. de pane érrvovolw in his tractat. de soloecism. N. T. 

p. 220sqq.; Valcken. Select. I. 190; Fr. ad Mt. p. 267 sq. (also 
against the derivation from odcia, which would be grammatically 89 
possible, cf. évovcvs). Besides, wepsovoros in the Bible does not Mihed 
- mean simply proprius, in opposition to what belongs to a stranger, 
any more than zrepsovovacyos in the Sept. means property merely. 

IIvortixds (Mark xiv. 3; Jno. xii. 3) from miorés, according to 110 
several ancient expositors equivalent to genwine. In classic authors 
the word signifies convincing, probably also persuasive (Plat. Gorg. 
455 a.; Diog. L. 4,37; Dion. H. V. 631; Sext. Emp. Math. 2, 71; 
Theophrast. metaph. 253 Sylb.), though in nearly all the passages 
Codd. have vrevotixos, and critics have usually given this the pref- 
erence (see Bekker and Stallb. on Plato, as above; cf. Lob. Soph. 

Ai. v. 151); in later writers faithful, trustworthy, of persons 
(Liicke, Joh. II. 496; see Index to Cedren. p. 950). The tran- 93 
sition to the signification genuine as the predicate of a material 1th od 
object, is not impossible, particularly when it is considered that 


technical expressions (such as vapdos muatixn may be), and espec- 
13 


LL 


98 § 16, FORMATION OF WORDS. 


ially mercantile terms, are often strange.! Others, after Casaubon, 
take auatixos for drinkable (Fr. Mr. 598 sqq.) from aumicxm or the 
root mlw, like wuatds drinkable Aeschyl. Prom. 480, wuatnp, tiotpa, 
mictpov, etc., quoted.in old Lexicons. ‘That the ancients drank 
oil of spikenard, we are told by Athenaeus 15, 689. I cannot, 
however, quite understand why both Evangelists subjoined this 
epithet; if the thin, liquid nard used for pouring out (Mark 
catayéew) in no respect differed from what was drunk, it would 
have been just as superfluous to add the epithet aor. as to call 
nard fluid. 'The vapdos Newry of Dioscorides, however, means fluid 
nard, as opposed to thick, viscid nard. Besides, the drinkable nard 
would not be suited to the manipulation indicated by dreideu 
in John. Lastly, Fritzsche’s translation of rior. (ad Mr. p. 601), 
“qui facile bibi potest, dwhenter bibitur,’ does not appear to be 
sufficiently established, not to mention that wiortixos cannot be 
positively shown to have signified drinkable. Even arictos itself 
was not much in use (in Aeschyl. it occurs in a pun), and was 
superseded by the unambiguous zrotds, mootpos. 

y. To adjectives derived from substantives belong, among others, 
cdpkwos and capxixos. The former means fleshy 2 Cor. ili..5 (as 
pro-paroxytone adjectives in eos almost without exception denote 
the material of which a thing is made, e.g. Ad@wos of stone 2 Cor. 
iii. 8, EVAwos wooden, mHrwos Of clay, axavOwos, Bucowvos, etc., 
Bttm. Il. 448), the latter (capxixos) means fleshly. There is, 
however, in Rom. vii. 14; 1 Cor. iii. 1 (2 Cor.i.12); Heb. vii. 16, 
where one might have expected capxzxos, preponderating or respec- 


90 table authority for cdpxwos, and even Lehm. has placed it in the 


6th ed. 


text. But how easily might capxixos, which does not occur outside 
of the N.T., be confounded in the Codd. with the very common 
capkwos (Fr. Rom. Il. 46sq.)! Had Paul, however, written odp- 
xwvos, he must have intended some peculiar emphasis, somewhat 
in the way that Mey., 1 Cor. as above, insists upon. But on the 
one hand, a notion of the natural man for which only the material 
term odpxevos would be adequate finds no sanction in the doctrinal 
teaching of Paul, while capxixds, as opposed to mvevparuxos, fully 
meets the demands even of the text in question ; and on the other 


1 They have in particular this peculiarity, that words elsewhere used only of persons 
are transferred to articles of merchandise. Compare flat, properly equivalent to feeble, 
and the expressions, ‘‘ Sugar dull — white unasked for.” ob. paralip. 31 upholds 
Scaliger’s derivation from mricow (fr. Mr. p. 595), as 7 after + elsewhere also for 
euphony’s sake is thrown away (cf. rrépuit, wépvié, but particularly witupoy and the 
Latin pisso). Mey. has not been induced to abandon the interpretation genuine. 


§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS. 99 


hand, 1 Oor. iii. 8, taken in connection with 2, shows that in both 94 
passages Paul employed the same expression. In the passage from Thet 
Heb. (vii. 16) évtod) capxivy is hardly admissible.’ 

Among oxytone adjectives in wos, expressing a notion of time 
(Bttm. Il. 448), are caOnuepivds, opOpivos, mpwives, later forms for 
which earlier authors used xa@npépios, etc. The like holds true 
of taywvos. 

Some adjectives derived from substantives end in ewos; as, oxo- 
rewds, pwrtevds. But édreevos (a form not unfrequent in Attic 
also V. Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 456) comes from the verb Acta, as 
modewds from roféw (Bttm. I. 448). 

To the later adjectival formations specially belongs xepapwxos 
(Kepapelos, KEpaputos )., 

Among adverbs derived from verbs gevdopévws seems to be 
peculiar to the N. T. 


4. B. Derivation By Composition. a. The N.T. con- 
tains numerous compound substantives whose jirst part also is a 
substantive. Although many of these compounds, however, cannot 
be shown to have existed in the written language of the Greeks, 
yet in their formation there is nothing noticeably at variance with 
analogy. Compare in particular éccavoxpicia (Leo Gr. p. 163), 
aipaterxvaia, TaTewodpav (like edceBoppav, cpatavodpov Constant. 
Porphyr. I. 33, by later authors even lovdaudpwv, EArnvodpwv 
Cedren. I. 660; Theoph. I. 149) and rtazrewodpocvvn (cf. pararo- 
- dpocvvn Constant. Man. 657), cxAnpoxapdia, sxAnpotpaxnros (from 
which we find cxAnpotpayndia and oxdnpotpayndav in Constant. 
Man.), axpoBvatia daxpoywviatos, addoTpLoemicKoTros (cf. adXo- 


1 It might perhaps be assumed in general that the later popular Greek interchanged 
these forms, and used odpxuvos also in the sense of capxixds: especially as not all adjec- 
tives in tvos signify the material of which a thing is made, cf. avOpémuwwos (see Fr. Rom. 
Il. 47; Tholuck, Hebr.-Br. 301 f.). Somewhat similar in German is the expression 
das Znwendige o& man for das Innere. 'The former had originally a more restricted 
meaning. Since, however, the term capxi«ds had already established itself undeniably 
in the language of the N. T., the above assumption loses here all foundation. 

2 Wenn dieses Wort anders von Bi¢w, Biw mit Etymol. m. abzuleiten ist, was neuer- - 
lich F’r, Rom. I. 136 bestritten hat, theils weil B’iw nicht scheine tegere geheissen zu 
haben (wie bei dieser Etymologie angenommen wird), theils weil das Wort nicht be- 
stimmt das Glied bezeichne, dessen Extremitit bedeckt sei, also nicht verstanden worden 
sein wiirde. Jener erste Grund scheint mir durchgreifender als der zweite. Ich mochte 
aber glauben, dass axpoBvotia nicht eine absichtslose Umbildung des griech. &«poroo Gia, 
sondern geflissentliche Umgestaltung sei, welche aus Schaam die Sache verdeckt aus- 
driicken sollte: axpéBvoros vorn (an der Spitze) strotzend von Unbeschnittenen im 
Gegensatz der Beschnittenen, deren vorderes Schaamglied glatt und straff war. Es ist 


91 


Gih ed. 


25 


Tth ed. 


‘ 


100 § 16. FORMATION OF WORDS. 


TpioTpaypoavvn Plato, rep. 4, 444 b.), avOpwirdpecxos (Lob. 621), 
Totapopopntos (cf. voatopopyntos Const. Man. 409), capdioyvaarns 
(xapdiorAnktos Theoph. I. 786, xapdvoxoramrns Leo Gr. 441), 
onToBpwtos, opParpodovrcia, elOowroradTp7s,! eidSwrCOvTov (Cedren. 
I. 286, cf. the abstract eidwrAobvcia Theophan. 415), decpoptrak 
(votopvraé Theophan. I. 608), opxwpocia (cf. atrapocia, KaTwpo-. 
cia), tatpotrapddotos (Geomapadotos Theophan. I. 627), ioayyendos 
(Theoph. I. 16), evrepiotaros, modvTroixinos, the Adverb tapaAnbet 
(the Adj. maum7O7s is found in good authors), eiducpuvijs, eidt- 
xpwvea (Fuhr, Dicaearch. p. 198). 

To the compound Sevrepdrpwros in Luke vi. 1 (?) comes nearest 
devtepodexatn found in Jerome on Lizek.c. 45. As the latter means 
second-tenth, so the former second-jirst. 

Awédexadvros, the Neut. of which is used as a noun in Acts xxvi. 
7, is sustained by tetpadudos Her. 5, 66. 

More rarely is the first part of the compound a verb, as in 
€OcdoOpnoxeta self-chosen worship ; cf. éBedodovria. 

Compound adjectives whose first part is a privative exhibit 
nothing anomalous, though perhaps many of them were not current 
in written Greek (apetavontos, aveEepevvntos, aveEvyviactos) ; only 
avéneos Jas. ii. 18, which Lchm. on the authority of good Codd. 
[Sin. also | has en into the text instead of avinrews, is singular, 
as the Greeks used avnrens, or at least daverejs (Lob. 710). 
’Avéreos would be formed like dvedmes, dmrats, and may have been 
intended as a verbal antithesis to éXeos. : Even Bttm. I. 467 con- 
sidered the a of the verb arevifw, derived from the Adj. atevys, to 
be the so-called a intensive ; but it is better to take it, with Lob. 
pathol. I. 85, for a formative. See besides Déderlein, de arda 


intensivo sermonis graeci, Hrl. 1830, 4to. 


b. When the last part of the compound is a verb —in compound 
verbs therefore —the verbal stem is regularly found unaltered 
only in combination with the so-called old prepositions (Scaliger 
in Lob. Phryn. 266; Bttm. II. 469f.); in other’ cases with a 
change so far forth as the verb strictly speaking first adopts its 
ending from a noun formed out of the stem, as advvarety, owororyet-— 
o0at, vovbereiv, evepyeteiv, tpotropopely, dpOoTopmelv (cf. opPoTouta 


so in der Art euphemistischer Ausdriicke, dass sie allgemein gehalten werden ; die, 
unter welchen sie gangbar werden, verstindigen sich bald tiber ihren Sinn. 

1 Cf. avOpwrodadtpns Ephraem. p. 743, mupoodatpyns Pachym. 134; Geo. Pisid. Heracl. 
1, 14, 182, Pevdoadrpns Theodos. acroas. 2, 73, likewise xpioroAdrpys frequent in Byzan- 
tine authors. 


§16, FORMATION OF WORDS. | 101 


Theophan. cont. p. 812), aya0oepyety and ayaboupyeiv,! petpio- 
mavety, etc. 

This rule, however, has some undoubted exceptions ; Scaliger 118 
long ago pointed out dus@vjcxm in Kurip. (cf. Bttm. II. 472). 
Evéoxetv, therefore, is directly formed from doxeivy, and not, as 
Passow maintained, from an intermediate noun doxos (Fr. Rom. 

Il. 870); it arose simply from a combination of the words in 
speaking ; cf. Bttm. 1.470. The same remark applies to capadoxety 
(not to be referred to doxcevw, Fritzschior. opusc. p. 151) ; no noun 92 
kapadoxos exists. Even dpepecOa, which in 1 Thess. ii. 8 the 
better Codd. [Sin. also] have instead of (we(pec@ar, might be ad- 
missible, were it to be derived from d6mod, duds and elpew (Fr. Mr. 

p- 792). To be sure, no verb of the kind with ow. is to be found 96 
elsewhere ; for éuadéw comes from 6puados; and dpodpopetv, duodo- Met 
Eciy, owevvetety, ounpevev, omoluvyety, omiretv, even opovoety (Bttm. 

II. 473), are likewise derived from nouns. Besides, the Genitive, 
governed as above by the verb, would be strange (cf. Mtth. IT. 907). 
Perhaps, however, the first objection should not be pressed in the 
case of a word formed in the language of the people. If pe(pec@az, 
which occurs in Nicand. Ther. 400 for (ueiper@a, were the original 
form, pelpecOar and omelpecOar might exist side by side as well as 
dupecVat and odvpecGar; indeed dpcipec@ar is perhaps the true 
reading (Lob. Pathol. 72). 

A formation peculiar to the Hellenistic idiom is 1posw7roAntrety 
_(mposwrornrTns, TposwrorAnia Theodos. acroas. 1, 32, amposwrro- 
AntTos, Acta apocr. p. 86). A corresponding verb is axatadynirrety 
in Sext. Emp. I. 201; for the concrete derivative, however, compare 
dwpornmTns and épyoAnmrns in the Sept.; and for the abstract 
mposwTrorAnia, cf. épwtorAn ia Ephraem, pp. 8104, 7890; Nicet. 
Eugen. 4, 251. 

Many other compound nouns of this sort, in which, as in mpos- 
emodnrrTns, Gavatnpopos,? the second part is derived from a verb 
while the first denotes the object, etc. (Bttm. Il. 478), occur in 
the N. T. but are unknown to the Greeks: e.g. deEordBos he who 
takes position at one’s right, hence an attendant. 

From such compounds arise in turn, not only abstract nouns 
(oxnvornyia even, belongs to this class, as though from oxnvornyes, 


1 On these forms see Bitm. 11.457. Against oixoupyety and oixoupyds (Tit. ii. 5 var.) 
ef. fr. de crit. conform. p. 29. 

2 Also av0déys is a compound of this description, from adrdés and dev, iderat Bttm. 
II. 458. 


114 


a 


102 § 16. FORMATION OF WORDS. 


according to numerous analogies, as xAwwornyia), but also verbs : 
ALGoBorety from AOoBoros (cf. avOoBoretv, OPnpoBoreiv, 7ndL0Bo- 
NeicOar, etc.), dpPorodeiv from opOozrovs, deEokaBety Leo Gram. 
p. L175 (Bttm. I. 479). 


In decomposite verbs, the preposition which constitutes the double 
composition is naturally put first, as daexdéyecOa, cvvavriAapBavecOat. 
Avaraparpi37 in 1 Tim. vi. 5 would violate this rule, if it must mean mis- 
placed diligence or unprofitable disputing. For this word can only signify 
continued (endless) hostilities, collisions ; wapaciarpi8y would be required 
to express the former meaning. The majority of the Codd., however, 
[Sin. also] have diaraparp.By and this Lchm. has printed. A transposition 
of the prepositions is accordingly assumed (even by Fr. Mr. p. 796). Yet 


— biarraparpiby continued dissension, is not unsuited to the passage. The 


93 
“Oth ed. 


97 
Tth od. 


other compounds beginning with diazapa which occur, viz. 1 Kings vi. 4 
duarapaximrecOar, and 2 Sam. iii. 80 dvaraparnpety, would be regular ac- 
cording to their respective import, if no doubt existed regarding the former ; 
see Schleusner, thes. philol. sub voc. The double compound zapaxara6yKy 
and the compound zapa6yxn are equivalent in meaning (Lennep ad Phalar. 
ep. p. 198, Lips.; Lob. 312). The latter, however, is better established 
in the N.T. The Codd. exhibit variations of both forms even in Thue. 
2,72 (see the commentators), and in Plutarch. ser. vind. see Wyttenb. 
II. 530. Cf. besides Heinichen, ind. ad Euseb. III. 529. 

Many verbs, compound as well as decompound, are found in Biblical 
Greek which do not occur in the classic language. In particular, verbs 
which the older writers used as simple, appear strengthened with preposi- 
tions which exhibit as it were to the senses the mode of the action (for 
the later language loves, in general, what is graphic and expressive) ;-e.g. 
kataAldalew to stone down to death, efopxilew to get a declaration on oath 
out of one, eaorparrev to flash forth, éxyapilew to give away (out of the 
family) in marriage (elocare), dueyetpety, eéavaréddewv, e€opodoyedy, and many 
others; see my five Progr. de verborum cum praepositt. compositor. in 
N. T. usu. Lips. 1834-43, 4to. 

In the same way, and for the same reason, compound and double com- 
pound adverbs (prepositions) were used in later Greek; as, éravw, Kar- 
evorov, katrévavtt. In Byzantine authors such formations are carried to a 
greater extent than in Biblical Greek; cf. e.g. xareravw in Constantin. 
Porphyrogen. 

Note 1. Proper names, particularly such as are compounds, frequently 
appear in the N. T. in those contracted forms which are peculiar to the 
language of the people, and which are in part very bold (Lob. 434, cf. 
Schmid on Horat. epp. 1,7, 55); as, “AvoAAds for “AroAAwrt0s, “Aprewas for 
"Apreuldwpos Tit. iii. 12, Nupdas for Nupdddpos Col. iv. 15,1 Zyvas for 


1 Keil in the Philologus II. 468 expressed his conviction that he had found this name 
in an inscription in Béckh. 


§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS. 103 


Zmvoduwpos Tit. iii. 13, Tapyevas for Mappevidys Acts vi. 5, Anuas probably 115 
for Anpéas, Anujtpios or Ayjpapxos Col. iv. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 10, probably 
also "OAvpzas for ‘OAvpridwpos Rom. xvi. 15, Exadpas for Exadpddiros 
Col. i. 7; iv. 12, and “Epyas for “Eppddwpos Rom. xvi. 14, @evdas for Mevduwpos 
ie. @eddwpos, and Aovkads for Lucanus (in Greek authors cf. AAefas for 
*AdeEavdpos Jos. bell. 6, 1, 8, Mynvas for Myvodwpos, Uv6as for Hv6ddupos, 
Merpas Euseb. H. E. 6, 41). Many also in as not circumflexed appear 

to be abbreviated; as, “AuaAlas for Ampliatus Rom. xvi. 8, ’Avrizas for 
’Avrizarpos Rey. ii. 13, KAedras for KXedzarpos Luke xxiv. 18, perhaps 
SiAas for ScAovavds; see Heumann, Poecile III. 314. Sazarpos for Swoi- 
matpos Acts xx. 4 (which even some Codd. give) would be likewise a very 
violent contraction, though nearer the beginning. Xwzarpos, however, 
may be an original form. On the other hand, proper names in aos, which 
probably not (Mtth. I. 149) the Dorians alone contracted into Aas, occur 

in the N. T. uncontracted: NixoAaos, “ApxéAaos. Moreover, how even the 
earlier Greeks contracted names of persons for the sake of euphony, 

K. Keil has shown by examples in his spec. onomatolog. gr. (Li. 1840, 8vo.) 

p: 52sqq. The German affords examples of similar abbreviations and 
contractions in great numbers, some very forced, as Klaus from Nikolaus, 
Kiithe (Kathi) from Katharina; many of them have become independent 
names which even occur in literature, as Fritz (Friedrich), Heinz (Hein- 
rich), Hans, Max. Cf. Lob. prolegg. pathol. p. 504sqq. In general, 94 
however, on Greek names of persons see Sturz, Progr. de nominib. Graecor., ‘tl ed 
also in his Opuse. (Lips. 1825, 8vo.), W. Pape, Wérterb. der griech. Eigen- 98 
namen. Brschw. 1842, 8vo. (Hall. L. Z. 1843. No. 106-108), and the La 
Beitriige zur Onomatologie by Keil in Schneidewin, Philologus, vols. 2 
and 3. 

Note 2. Latin words adopted into the Greek of the N. T., — mostly sub- 
stantives denoting Roman judicial institutions, coins, or articles of dress,— 
exhibit nothing peculiar with regard to form. Latin verbs made to assume 
Greek forms make their first appearance later, in the Greek style of the 
Pseudepigrapha, the Byzantines, etc. See Thilo, Acta App. Petri et Pauli, 
Hal. 1837, 4to. I. p. 10sq. 


99 |e. Oh i ded bord PLE 


7th ed. 
95 
6th od BS i Wa cd NG aie coe 
116 
A. IMPORT AND USE OF THE SEVERAL PARTS OF SPEECH. 
<= $e 
CHAPTER I. 


OF THE ARTICLE.! 


_§17, THE ARTICLE AS A PRONOUN. 


1. The article 6, 7), 76 was originally a demonstrative pronoun, 
and is regularly employed as such in epic poetry,—to which 
belongs the quotation from Aratus in Acts xvii. 28: ted yap yévos 
éopév ; cf. Soph. Oed. R. 1082 tis yap wépuxa pytpos (Mtth. 737. 
For prose cf. Athen. 2, p. 87). 

In prose on the other hand the article is ordinarily equivalent 
to a demonstrative pronoun only — 

a. In the current formulas 6 pév ... 6 dé, of ev... of 06,2 some- 
times in reference to a subject previously mentioned: this... that, 
the one... the other Acts xiv. 4; xvil. 82; xxvilil. 24; Heb. vii. 20f.; 
Gal. iv. 23 (Schaef. Dion. 421), sometimes partitively without such 
reference, Eph. iv. 11 éSwxev tovs pév atroaToAous, Tovs O€ mpopyTas, 
Tous 5, etc. (some ... others). 

b. In the course of narration, in the simple phrase o 6é, of 6é, 
100 but he, etc. (as opposed to some other subject) ; as, Matt. xiii. 29 
hed § $2 edn, ii. 9 of S€ dxovcavtes érropevOncar, ii. 14; ix. 831; Luke 

1 A, Klutt, vindiciae artic. in N. T. Traj. et Alemar. 1768-1771. P. I. Tom. IL-IIL., 
P. II. Tom. I. II. 8vo. (the book itself is written in Dutch), 7’. /’. Middleton, the doctrine 
of the Greek Article applied to the criticism and illustration of the New Test. Lond. 1808, 
8vo.; cf. Schulthess in the theol. Annal. 1808, 8. 56 ff. #. Valpy, a short treatise on 
the doctrine of the Greek Article, according to Middleton, etc., briefly and compendi- 
ously explained as applicable to the criticism of the N. T., prefixed to his Greek Tes- 
tament with English notes. Lond. 3rd ed. 1834, 3 Vols. 8vo. Hmmerling’s remarks on 
the Article in the N. T. in Keil and Tzschirner’s Analekt. I. II. 147 ff. are unimportant. 


On the other hand, Bengel Matt. xviii. 17 discusses the subject briefly but to the purpose. 
2 On the accentuation see Hm. Vig. p. 700. On the other side, Arig. p. 83. 


§ 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS, a. BEFORE NOUNS. {05 


Histo yun ol 5) xx. 12; Jffo. i. 39; ix. 38; Acts1.6; ix. 40, etc. 117 
(Xen. A. 2, 3,2; Aesch. dial. 38,15, 17; Philostr. Ap. 1, 21, 5; 
Diod. S. Exc. Vat. p. 26, 29 etc.) 

For of pev... of d€ are found also of pév... GAor 5€ Ino. vii. 12, of pev 96 
... GAXor S$... Erepor Sé Matt. xvi. 14 (Plato, legg. 2, 658b.; Ael. 2, 54; bthed. 
Palaeph. 6, 5), twés ... ot dé Acts xvii. 18, cf. Plato, legg. 1, 627 a. and Ast 
on the passage. Similar expressions are still more diversified in Greek 
authors (Mtth. 742). 

Instead of the Article, the Relative also is employed in such antithetical 
statements; as, 1 Cor, xi. 21 ds pév eva, ds dé pebva, Matt. xxi. 85 ov pev 
etpav, dv dé dxexrevar, etc., Acts xxvil. 44; Rom. ix. 21; Mark xii. 5; 
ef. Polyb. 1,7,3; 3,76 4; Thuc. 3,66; see Georgi, Hierocr. I. 109 sqq.; 
Hm. Vig. 706. Once os pev... adXos dé 1 Cor. xii. 8 (Xen. A. 3, 1, 35) ; 

0 pev (Neut.) ... Kat e€repoy Luke viii. 5 ff; in 1 Cor, xii. 28 an anacoluthon 
is easily perceived. See in general Bhdy. 806f (In Rom. xiv. 2 6 dé is 
not related to ds pev, but 6 is the Article belonging to doGevav.) 


2. In Matt. xxvi. 67; xxviii. 17 of dé is used of a second party 
without a first’s having been designated by ot wév. The former 
passage évértvucay eis TO TpOswTroV aUTOD Kal Exohadicay avTOr, ot Oé 
éppamicav would more regularly run thus: kai ot pev éxorad. ; 
but as he writes écodad. the author has no second distributive 
clause definitely in mind as yet; but when he subjoins o¢ 6€ ép6. 
it becomes self-evident that é€xodkad. applies to a part only of the 
actors ; cf. Xen. H. 1, 2, 14 of aiyudrwro ... @yovTo és Aexédevar, 
oi 8 és Méyapa, Cyr. 3, 2,12; see Poppo ad. Cyr. p. 292; Bremi, 
Demosth. p. 273. So, in Matt. xxviii., it is first stated in general 
terms ot évdexa pabyral ... iovres avTov tposexvvyncav ; that this, 
however, is to be understood only of the greater number is clear 
from what follows—oi d€ édictacav. In Luke ix. 19 of 6é refers 
regularly to the previously mentioned paéyrai vs. 18, and should 
seem to denote that all gave the answer which follows; but the 
expressions aAXou Oe... dAXdot O€ show that the answer was given 
by only a part of the disciples. Matt. xvi. 14 is more regular: 
ot dé eizrov* of wév Imaveny ... ddrdov dé... Erepor 8é. 


§ 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS, a. BEFORE NOUNS. 118 


1. When 6, 7, td is employed as strictly an Article before a 
noun, it marks the object as one definitely conceived,! whether in 


1 Cf. Epiphan. haer. 1, 9, 4.— Herm. praef. ad Eurip. Iphig. Aul. p. 15: articulus 
quoniam origine pronomen demonstrativum est, definit infinita idque duobus modis, 
aut designando certo de multis aut quae multa sunt, cunctis in unum colligendis. 


106 § 18, ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS, a. BEFORE NOUNS. 


101 consequence of its nature, or the conttxt, or some circle of ideas 

ith el. assumed as known; as, Mark i. 32 dre du 6 ids, Jno. i. 52 dweobe 
Tov ovpavoy avewyora, 1 Cor. Xv. 8 ws7repel TO Extpopate WhOn Kapol 
(the only abortion among the apostles), Acts xxvii. 88 éxPadropevot 
Tov citov els THY Oddaccar the grain (which was the vessel’s cargo), 
Luke iv. 20 wrvéas to BiBdXtov (which had been handed to him 

97 vs. 17) arododvs TO Umnpery (the beadle of the synagogue), Jno. xiii. 

Shel. 5 Badret bdwp eis Tov verthpa the basin (that stood there, as usual), 
cf. Matt. xxvi. 26 f.; Jno. vi. 3 avidOev ets TO dpos into the mountain 
(situated just there on the farther shore vs. 1), 1 Cor. v. 9 éypawra 
év TH emtatodW (which Paul had previously written to the Cor.), 
Acts ix. 2 yTncaTo émvatoAas els AapacKoy pos Tas cvvaywyds to 
the synagogues (there in Damascus), Rev. xx. 4 é€Sacirevoav peta 
Xpictov ta yxidva rn the thousand years (the known duration of 
the Messiah’s kingdom), Jas. ii. 25 “PaaS 1 mopyvn trrodeEapevn 
Tovs wyyérous the spies (mentioned in the history of Rahab), Heb. 
ix. 19 AaBov To aiwa TOV porywv Kal TOV Tpdywv With allusion 
to Exod. xxiv. 8. So 1 Cor. vil. 38 79 yuvatxl 6 avnp thy oderryv 
aTroo.ooTw the (i.e. matrimonial) attention due, vii. 29 6 Katpos cuve- 
oTarpevos éotiv; cf. vs. 26 dva THY evesotocav avayxnv. The Article 
thus refers to known facts, arrangements, or opinions, Acts v. 387; 
xxi. 88; Heb. xi. 28; 1 Cor. x.1,10; 2 Thess. li. 35 Sige 
ii. 14; xvii. 3; Matt. vili..4, 12, or to something previously men- 
tioned, Matt. ii. 7 (1) ; Luke ix. 16 (13) ; Acts ix. 7 (4); Jno. 
iv. 43 (40) ; Acts x1. 18 (x. 8, 22) 5 Jas. 11.3 (2); Jno. xi1.12 (1); 
xx. 1 (xix. 41); Heb. v.41); Rev. xv. 6 (1). Accondiniings 
épyomevos is the Messiah, 1) xpicws the (last) gudgment, » ypapy the 
holy Scripture, » cwrnpia Christian salvation, 6 weipatwv the Tempter 
— Satan, ete. So also of geographical designations, 7 éonuos the 
desert, so called by way of eminence, 72735, i.e. according to the 
context, either the Arabian desert (of Mount Sinai) Jno. iii. 14; 
vi. 81; Acts vii. 30, or the desert of Judea Matt. iv. 1; xi. 7. 

119 ‘To be particularly noticed, further, is the use of a Singular with 
the Article to express in the person of a definite individual a 
whole class; as when we say, the soldier must be trained to arms: 
2 Cor. xii. 12 ta onpeta tod arootédov, Matt. xii. 85 o dyabos 
avOpwros ... €xBadrA ayaa, xv. 11; xviii. 17; Luke x: 7; Gal. 
iv. 1; Jas. v. 6. Allied to this is the Singular in parables and 
allegories: Jno. x. 11 6 wrowunv 6 Karos THY Wuyny avTod TiOnow, 
where the Good Shepherd is brought forward as an ideal; Matt. 
xiii. 3 é&fAOev 6 orelpwy tov omelpew (where Luther incorrectly 
has, a sower). See Krii. 86 f. 


§ 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 107 


Note. According to Kiihnél the Article (cf. the emphatic dus in 
German) sometimes includes the force of the pronoun this (cf. Siebelis, 
Pausan. I. 50; Boisson. Babr. p. 207), Matt. i. 25 tov vidv for todrov tov {y9 
vidv, Jno. vii. 17 yvwoerae wept THs didaxijs, VS. 40 €x Tod dxAov, Acts xxvi. 10 iil ed. 
TH mapa Tov dpxepewy eLovoiavy KaPov, Mark xiii. 20; Acts ix. 2; but the 
definite Article is quite sufficient in all such cases. Heumann has gone 
still further in conceding this import of the Article, and is followed by 
Schulthess (n. krit. Journ. I. 285), who, with Kiihnol, quite erroneously 
refers to Mtth. § 286, where this use of the Article, which can hardly 
occur in prose (except Ionic), is not discussed. Col. iv. 16 drav dvayvwoO7 
map viv » exiatoAy we also say, when the letter is read (not the (this) letter 
—no such underscoring is needed, since the letter in hand could be the only 
one thought of) ; some authorities add avrn, but the ancient versions ought 99 
not to be reckoned in. In 1 Tim.i. 15 even in German the Demonst. 6th ed, 
Pronoun is not required, nor in vi. 13. In 2 Cor. v. 4 the Art. in év 76 
oxyver is not put decxrixds for rov’rw, but simply refers back to oxjvos men- 
tioned in vs. 1. In Col. iii. 8 dwdeoGe kai tpets TA wavra is not, all this 
(or that) (intensive), but the whole, viz. what is immediately (a second 
time) adduced. Also in Rom. v. 5 7 (éA7is) is simply the Article; see 
Fr. Least of all must 6 xécpos be taken for otros 6 kéapos; it means the 
world as distinguished from heaven, the kingdom of heaven ; not this world 
as opposed to another kocpos. The same judgment must be passed also 
upon those passages which might be adduced as proofs of this usage in 
classic authors, Diog. Laert. 1, 72 and 86. One cannot possibly compre- 
hend how the apostles could have been induced, in certain passages where 
they thought the demonstrative pronoun, to employ — not that, but — the 
article, which is much weaker in every instance. One’s sense of linguistic 
propriety revolts against such a use of language. Besides, explicitness is 
the very characteristic of the later language in general (and of that of the 
N. T. also). 

By Greek authors, particularly Ionic and Doric (Mtth. 747; cf. Ellendt, 
Lexic. Soph. IT. 204), and afterwards by the Byzant. (Malal. p. 95, 102), 
the Art. was sometimes used for the Relative. Some have asserted that: 
the same use is found in the N. T. in Acts xiii. 9 SadAos 6 cal MadAos (see 120 
Schleusner s. h. v.) ; but incorrectly, for 6 cai I. is here equivalent to 
6 Kat kadovpevos Hatdos (Schaef. L. Bos. p. 213), and the Article retains 
its ordinary import, just as in &. 6 Tapoev’s. Compare the similar Iikos 6 
Kat Zevs Malal. ed. Bonn. p- 19sq.; Act. Thom. p.34. On the other hand, 
compare,in Hellenistic writers, Psalt. Sal. xvii. 12 év rots xpipaot, 7& motel 
" éxt TH ynv, if the reading is correct. In Wisd. xi. 15, where év the reading 
of the Cod. Alex. is probably a correction, rov is to be regarded as the 
Article. 


2. The use of the Article which has just been discussed is 
common to the Greek with all laneuages that possess an Article. 


108  §18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 


The following cases on the other hand (cases where in German 
the definite Art. is not used) are to be noticed as peculiar : 

103 a. Rev. iv. T ro Goov éxov To Tposwrov ws avOpeTrov (Xen. C. 

ithed. 5, 1, 2 duotav tais SovAais etye tiv écOjra, Theophr. ch. 12 [19] 
Tovs dvuyas peyddous éxwv, Polyaen. 8, 10, La.), Acts xxvi. 24 
peyaryn TH povn edn, xiv. 10; 1 Cor. xi. 5 (Aristot. anim. 2,8 and 
10; Lucian. catapl.11; D.8.1, 70, 88; Pol. 15, 29, 11; Philostr, 
Ap. 4,44). We say, he had eyes like, etc. ; he spoke with a loud 
voice, etc. The Greek here by the Article designates what belongs 
to the individual in a definite form, as is more obvious from Heb. 
Vil. 24 amapaPatov éxet THY lepwovvnv he hath the priesthood as un- 
changeable (predicate), Mark viii. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 12; iv. 8; Eph. 
i. 18 and from Matt. ili. 4 eiye ro évdupa adtod amo tprydv Kapn- 
Nov, Rev. ii. 18 (differing from the preceding examples by the 
addition of the pronoun). From Greek authors, for the former 
ef. Thue. 1,10 and 23; Plato, Phacdr. 242 b. ; Lucian. dial. deor. 

99 8,1; fugit. 10; “eun. 11; D.8. 1,525 2,19; 3, 84; Aerie 

hel. 13.15; Pol. 8, 4,1; 8,10,1; see Lob. Phryn. 265; Krii. Dion. 

H. 126. (The Art. is sometimes omitted e.g. in 2 Pet. 11. 14; ef. 

Aristot. anim. 2, 8 and 10 with 2, 11.) 

b. 1 Cor. iv. 5 rote 6 ératvos yernoerar Exadot@ the praise which 
is due him, Rom. xi. 86 atrvé 7) 60£&a eis Tovs aiwvas, xvi. 27; Eph. 
ii. 21; Gal. 1.5; 1 Pet. iv. 11; Rev. v. 18; Rev. 1v. 1iegeeee 
AaBety thy do€av Kal tiv tysHnv, Jas. ii. 14 Td TO Sheros eav rictiv 
réyn Tis Exew the advantage to be expected, 1 Cor. xv. 382; 1 Cor. 
ix. 18 ris pot éotw 6 ptoOos (Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. If. 212). In 
general the Art. here denotes that which is due, requisite, etc., 
Kru. 84. Accordingly it is often used where we employ a Pos- 
sessive Pronoun; as, Rom. iv. 47@ épyafouev@ o puto Oos ov Royiferas 
his reward, ix. 22; Luke xviii. 15. Cf. Fritzsche, Aristot. Amic. 
pp. 46, 99. 

121 On the other hand, no example occurs of the use of the Art. discussed 
by Mtth. 714 and Rost 438 in appellations (Schaef. Demosth. IV. 365) ; 
for in Rev. vi. 8 6vopa atta 6 Odvaros, viii. 11 7d Gvopa Tod dorépos A€yerar 
6 awuwOos, xix. 13 KékAnrat 7d dvoya abtod 6 Adyos Tod Geov, a name is men- 
tioned in every case which belongs individually and exclusively to the object. 

3. Adjectives and participles used substantively are, like sub. 
stantives, rendered definite by the Article; as, 1 Cor. i. 27 of codoi, 
Eph. vi. 16 Bérn Tod wovnpod, Gal. i. 23 6 SwwKwv duas, Tit. iii. 8 
ot TemiatevKoTes TH Ged, 1 Cor. ix. 13 of Ta tepa épryafopevor, Mati. 


X20: Boers ex lO Corexty, Goulet xii 


§ 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a, BEFORE NOUNS. 109 


But the place of the noun may be occupied also by an indeclina- 
ble part of speech, as an Inf. or an Adverb, 2 Cor. i. 17, or by a 
phrase, Rom. iv. 14 ot é« vOHoU, Heb. xiii. 24 of amo ths “Itadias 
(D. S. 1, 83), Acts xiii. 13 of mept Iladdov, Phil. i. 27 ta epi 
byuov etc. 1 Cor. xiii. 10 (Krii. 92) ; and indeed (after 76) by a 
whole proposition, Acts xxii. 80 yv@vas 70 Ti Katnyopettae Civ. 21; 
1 Thess. iv. 1; Luke xxii. 2, 23, 87), Mark ix. 23 eiwev avt@ 70° 
et duvn; Gal. v. 14 6 mas vopos ev Evi NOY TETANPwTAL, EV TO° 
ayannoes Tov mwAncioy cov, Rom. viii. 26; xiii. 9; Luke i. 62; 
[ Matt. xix. 18]. (Sentences thus made prominent are usually 104 
quotations or interrogations.) Cf. Plato, Gorg. 461 e. and Phaed. “et 
62b.; rep. 1, 352d.; Demosth. Con. 728c¢.; Lucian. Alex. 20; 
Mtth. 730 f.; Stallb. Plat. Euthyph. p. 55, and Men. 25. Even 
an Adverb or a Genitive connected with the Art. (particularly the 
Neut.) becomes a virtual Substantive (Ellendt, Arrian. Al. 1. 84; 
Weber, Demosth. p. 237) ; as, Luke xvi. 26 ot éxet@ev, Jno. vill. 23 
Ta KTM, TA AVM, JNO. XXi. 2 of ToD ZeBedaiov, Luke xx. 25 ta 
Kaicapos, Jas. iv. 14 7d tis avpiov, 2 Pet. ii. 22 7d Ths adyOods 
mapoyias, 1 Cor. vii. 833 Ta Tod Kocpov, 2 Pet. i. 3; 2 Cor. x. 16; 
Phil. i. 5; Jno. xviii. 6, etc. Krii. 28, 93. So too, in German we 
ean say briefly, das droben, das des morgenden Tags (what will 
happen to-morrow ), die des Zebeddéus (those belonging to him, e.g. 
sons), see § 80, 8. Often, however, we must use a periphrasis ; 100 
was dem Kaiser gebiihrt ; ete. As a mere periphrasis, like 76 tig bth ed 
do0&ns for 7 do&a 1 Pet. iv. 14, the neut. Art. is not used in the N.T. 
(Huther in loc. [1st ed.] to the contrary.) 


The Neut. 76 is sometimes put before nouns to designate them in the 
abstract, as sounds or combinations of sound: Gal. iv. 25 76 yap "Ayap ete., 
the (word) Hagar. 

In many connections a participle used substantively occurs with an article 
(which is not admissible in German) as a definite predicate to an indefinite. 
subject, Gal. i. 7 tues eiow of tapdocortes bas, Col. ii. 8 py tis buds eora 
6 avAayayav, also Jno. v. 82; Luke xviii. 9; or as a definite subject where, 
logically, an indefinite was to be expected, Rom. ii. 11 ov« éo7w 6 ovvdv 
(Jno. v. 45), 2 Cor. xi. 4 ef 6 epydpevos GAAov “Incoty knpiooe. But in 
Greek in all such cases the quality is conceived of as a definite concrete, 122 
only the person, who is this concrete in action, remains indefinite. ‘The 
Tapdocovres tuas really exist, only as individuals they are not more closely 
designated. Jf he that cometh (the preacher who will not fail to appear 


1 Cf. in Latin sunt qui existimant as distinguished from sunt qui existiment ; see Zumpt, 
S. 480. 


110 § 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 


among you, — person and name are of no consequence), etc.; he that un-~ 
derstandeth is not (to be found), ete. So Lucian. abdic. 3 joav twes ob 
pavias apynv tovr elvat vouiCovres, Lysias bon. Aristoph. 57 etoé tuves ot 
mposavaNickovres, Dio Chr. 38, 482 7d twés eiow ot Kal TovTo dedouKoTes, and 
the frequent eictv ot A€yovres Mtth. 713, also Xen. A. 2, 4, 5 6 aynodpevos 
ovdels eorat, Thuc. 3. 83 otk nv 6 duadvowv, Porphyr. abst. 4, 18 ovdeis eorw 
6 koAdowr, (Sept. Gen. xl. 8; xli.8; Deut. xxii. 27; 1 Sam. xiv. 39). See 
Bhdy. 318 f; Hm. Soph. Oed. R. 107; Doederl. Soph. Oed. Col. p. 296 ; 
Dissen, Demosth. cor. p. 238. Acts 1.47 0 Kvptos zposeriGer tovs cwlopévovs 


105 7 ékxAnota means, he added to the church those that were being saved (in 


Tth ed, 


consequence of their believing), he increased the church by those in whom 
preaching took effect; cf. Krii. 89. 

Between woAdoé and ot roAAot put substantively (the latter is very rare 
in the N. T.) we find the usual distinction. Oi roAXdof means the (known) 
many 2 Cor. ii. 17 contrasted with unity, Rom. xii. 5 of woAAol &vy capa 
ecpev (1 Cor. x. 17), or opposed to a definite individual Rom. v. 15, 19, or, 
without such contrast, the generality, the (great) mass, the vulgus (all but 
afew) Matt. xxiv. 12; cf. Schaef. Melet. p. 3. 65. | 


4. Nouns rendered more distinctly definite by obres or éxetvos as 
adjectives,! always have the Article, inasmuch as they. distinguish 
some individual from the mass (not so in German — nor in Eng- 
lish) : 6 av@pw7os obtos Luke ii. 25, ob tos 6 dvOpwros xiv. 30, Tov 
aypov éxetvov Matt. xiii. 44, év éxetvy 7H nuwépa Matt. vii. 22, 6 xaxds 
dodAos éxetvos Matt. xxiv. 48. Also in Luke vii. 44 the accredited 
reading is Br€érreus TavTHY THY yuvatka, though TtavTnv yuvaixa,—as 
the woman was present, — according to Wolf in Dem. Lept. p. 268 ; 


101 Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. IT. 243 ; Krii. 108, would be unexceptionable. 


6th ed. 


125 


Names of persons also with otros usually have the Article; as, 
Heb. vii: 1.5 Acts 1.0113 91, 32> 4xix 0 2b fees 

“A noun with was may either have the Art. or not; waoa mons 
means every city, taca 1 odes the whole city Matt. vill. 84 (Rom. 
11.19 wa trav otopa dpayh Kal bddiuKos yévntat Tas 6 KOTpOS) ; 
Tacat yeveai all generations, whatever their number, wacau ai 
yeveat Matt. i. 17 all the generations, known as a definite plural 
either from the context or some other source. Cf. Sing. Matt. iii. 
10; vi. 29; xiii. 47; Jno. ii. 10; Luke vii. 29; Mark v.33; Phil. 
i, 53 Plur. Matt. ii. 4; iv. 24; Luke xii. 27; Actsixxil ioe 
vi. 6; 2 Pet. iii. 16 (where there is not much authority for the 
Art.). 


1 Tt is otherwise when these pronouns are predicates; as, Rom. ix. 8 Tatra réxva 700 
6cov, Luke i. 36 otros why extos éotiv, Jno. iv. 18 todta GAnbes eFpyxas, ii. 11, ete. Cf. 
Fr. Mt. 663; Schaef. Plut. 1V. 377. 


§ 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. = {{1. 


The following are not exceptions: Matt. 11. 8 maca ‘Iepoco\upa 
all Jerusalem (for ‘JepocoAvpa is a proper name, see paragraph 5), 
Acts ii. 36 mas otxos ‘Iopaijnr the whole house of Israel (for this too 
is treated as a proper name 1 Sam. vii. 2f.; Neh. iv. 16; Judith 
viii. 6). In Eph. iti. 15 taca rwarpia obviously means every race, 
Col. iv. 12 év wavti Oedypate tod Oeod in every will of God (in 
everything which God wills), 1 Pet. i.15 é» wacn avactpoph in 
omnt vitae modo. 

Still less are the following instances to be considered as excep- 
tional: Jas. i. 2 macav yapav ayjoacbe, Eph. i. 8 év tracy copia 
(2 Cor. xii. 12; Acts xxiii. 1) all (full) joy, in all (full) wisdom 106 
—for they are abstracts denoting a whole, where every wisdom ‘et. 
and all wisdom substantially coincide, Krii. 106. Only in Eph. ii. 

21 there is preponderating authority for waca oixodour, though, 
since the church of Christ as a whole is spoken of, the whole build- 
ing is the proper translation; A C [Sin**] however, actually give 
the Art., which owing to the Itacism might easily have fallen out. 

IIas joined to a participle not equivalent to a noun demands particular 
notice: ras épyilopevos means every one angry (when, if, while he is angry), 
ef. 1 Cor. xi. 4, but was 6 dpylopevos Matt. v. 22 every angry person i.g. 
mas Ostis dpyiterat; cf. Luke vi. 47; xi. 10; Jno. iii. 20; xv. 2; 1 Cor. 

ix. 25; 1 Thess. i. 7, etc.; Krii. 89. This distinction must guide our 
judgment respecting the double reading Luke xi. 4 wavri édeiAovre and 
mavtt To dpeirovri, see Mey. 

Tovotros is joined to a noun without an Art. when such, any such, of this 
sort, is meant; as, Matt. ix. 8 é€ova(a roavry, Mark iv. 33 rovadrar rapaoral, 
Acts xvi. 24 rapayyeNla rovavry, 2 Cor. iii. 12. When, on the other hand, 

a particular object is pointed out as such a or of such a sort, the noun natu- 
rally takes the Art.; as, Mark ix. 87 & rv rovovrwy raidiwy (with reference 
to wadiov in vs. 36 that represents childhood), Jno. iv. 23; 2 Cor. xii. 3, ef. 102 
vs. 2; 2 Cor. xi. 13; Schaef. Demos. III. 136 ; Schneider, Plat. civ. I. p. 1, bth el. 

“Exaoros, which is seldom employed adjectively in the N. T., is always 124 
joined to a substantive without an Art., Orelli, Isocr. Antid. p. 255, (9), 
Luke vi. 44 exaorov dévdpov, Jno, xix. 23 éxdorw otparuiryn, Heb. iii. 13 
ka’ éxdornv y€pav, Bornem. Xen. An. p. 69. In Greek authors the Art. 


often accompanies nouns with éxacros; Stallb. Plat. Phileb. p. 93 and 
Hipp. Maj. 164. 


1 Only nouns of the class mentioned in § 19, 1. can, even when joined to was (the 
whole), dispense with the Article, e.g. aca yi; cf. Thuc. ed. Poppo, III. II. p. 224. 
In the N. T. this word always has the Article; as, Matt. xxvii. 45 ém) waoay thy yijv, 
Rom. x. 18, ete. Finally, the passages Thiersch, de Pentat. Alex. p. 121, has quoted to 
prove the omission of the Art. with was (the whole) in the Sept., are for the most part 
quite irrelevant. 


gh §18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 


Td aird mvedua means the same Spirit; but air 7d mrvetpa the Spirit 
Himself, Krii. 107. Compare for the former Rom. ix. 21; Phil. i. 30; 
Luke vi. 88; xxiii.40; 2 Cor. iv. 13; for the latter Rom. viii. 26; 1 Cor. 
xv. 28; 2 Cor. xi. 14; Jno. xvi. 27. In both cases the Art. is never 
omitted in the N. T. with appellatives, — (Luke xx. 42; xxiv. 15 therefore 
are no exceptions; Bornem. Schol. p. 158.)'—as it is sometimes in Greek 
authors, that is to say in the former case, especially in epic poetry, Hm. 
Opusce. I. 832 sqq., and in later prose (index to Agath. ed. Bonn. p. 411) ; 
in the latter case, even in the better prose authors, Krii. Dion. H. 454 sq. ; 
Bornem. Xen. An. p. 61; Poppo, index ad Cyr. sub verb. 

5. Proper names, as they already denote a definite individual, 
do not require the Art., nevertheless, as the established sign of 
definiteness, it is often joined to them. First, in regard to geo- 
graphical names : ; 

a. The names of countries (and rivers) more frequently take 
the Art. than those of cities (cf. die Schweiz, die Lausitz,, die 
Lombardei, das Elsass, das 'T'yrol, etc.). 

107. The following never or very seldom occur without the Art.: 

ith el. "Tovdala, Ayaia, Iopdavns, Itadia, Tadirala, Mvoia, ‘Acia (Acts 
ii. 9, yet see vi. 9; 1 Pet. i. 1), Saudpea (Luke xvii. 11), Supia 
(Acts xxi. 8), Kpyrn (yet Tit. i. 5). Only Aiyurros always is 
used without the Art., and with Maxedovia usage varies. 

b. Names of cities most rarely have the Art. when connected 
with a preposition (Locella, Xen. Ephes. pp. 223, 242), particularly 
with év, eis, or é«; ef. the words Aapackos, ‘Iepovcadnp, ‘Lepoco- 
Aupua, Tapoos,”Edecos, Avtioyera, Kazrepvaovp in the concordance. 
Only Kacapeca, “Pon and Tpwas vary strangely. 

c. Sometimes it is to be observed that a geographical name, 
when it occurs for the first time in the narration, has not the Arti- 
cle, but takes it on being repeated; as, Acts xvii. 15 éws “A@nvav 
first time, then vs. 16, xviii. 1, with the Art.; Acts xvii. 10 eis 
Bépovar, then vs. 18 év 7h B.; Acts xvi. 9 duaBas ets Maxedoviar, then 

125 six times with the Art. (only in xx. 8 without it); Acts xx. 16 
HrAOouev ets Mirntov, vs. 17 dao THs Muinsyrtov. 

‘Tepovoady. has the Art. only when. accompanied with an adjective ; 
Rev. iii. 12; Gal. iv. 25f; besides in Acts v. 28 in the Acc. (on the 
contrary, Luke xxiv. 18; Acts i. 19, etc.). ‘IepoodAvpa occurs in the 
oblique cases with the Art. only in Jno. (v. 2; x. 22. ;axbo LB): 

103 6. The use of the Art. with names of persons (Bhdy. 317 ; Mdv. 
bihel. 17>) can hardly be reduced to rule. A comparison of separate 


1 In Matt. xii. 50 it is quite unnecessary with Fr. to take airdés for 6 abrds. 


§18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 113 


passages will easily convince one of the capricious irregularity of 
writers,! and that he cannot go far with the distinction (Hm. praef. 
ad Iphig. Aul. p. 16; Fr» Mt. p. 797; Weber, Demosth. p. 414) 
that a proper name is first introduced without the Art. but takes 
it when repeated (cf. Matt. xxvii. 24,58 with 62; Mark xv. 1, 14,, 
15 with 43; Luke xxiii. 1 ff. with 6 and 13; Jno. xviii. 2 with 5; 
Acts vi. 5 with 8f.; viii. 1 with 8 and ix. 8; Acts viil. 5 with 6, 
12);? nor with that other (Thilo, Apocr. I. 163 sq.), ‘ proper 
names when in the Nominative usually did not take the Art., but 
frequently had it when in the oblique cases.’ Hence the authority 
of the best MSS. must decide mainly whether the Art. shall stand 
or not.4 Proper names which are rendered definite by subjoined 


names of kindred or of office, usually (even in the classics Ellendt, 108 
Arrian. Al. I. 154, yet see Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 417 sq. ; Diod. S. thet 


Exe. Vat. p. 87) dispense with the Art. (since they first become 
definite by means of the predicate) : Gal. i. 19 "IaxwBov tov aderdov 
tod Kupiov, Matt. x. 4 Iovéas 6 ‘Ioxapuérns, ii. 1,33; iv.21; xiv. 1; 
Mark x. 47; xvi.1; Jno. xviii. 2; 1 Thess. iii. 2; Rom. xvi. 8 ff. ; 
meiinto; xli.1; xvili.8,17. Thus Pausan. e.g. 2,1,1; 3,9,1; 
7, 18,6; Aeschin. Tim. 179c.; Diog. L. 4, 32; 7, 10, 138; 8, 58, 
63 ; Demosth. Theocr. 511 c. and Apat. 581 b. ; Phorm. 605 b., ete. ; 
Conon. 728 b.; Xen. Cyr. 1, 8,8; 2,1, 5; Diod. S. Exc. Vat. p. 
20. 22. 39. 41. 42. 51. 69. 95 ete. On the other hand, with inde- 
clinable names of persons where the case is not at once apparent 
from a preposition, appended title, etc. (as in Mark xi. 10; Luke 
foe, Jno. iv.5; Acts ii. 29; vii.14; xiii. 22; Rom. iv.1; Heb. 
iv. 7) perspicuity seems to require the Art.: Matt.i.18; xxii. 42; 
Mark xv. 45; Luke ii.16; Acts vil.8; Rom. ix.18; xi. 25; Gal. 


1Jn German, as is well known, the use of the Article before names of persons is 


126 


. provincial. Der Lehmann, common in Southern Germany, would sound strange in 


Northern Germany. 

2 Even a person who is mentioned for the first time may take the Article when one 
well known to the reader, orwtherwise sufficiently particularized. 

8 Compare in particular the want of uniformity in the use of the Article with MladaAos 
and Tlérpos in the Acts. WiAdros in Jno. has always the Article; but in the Acts, 
never ; in Matt. and Mark we find with few exceptions 6 MAdros. Tiros has never 
the Article. 

4 That in the addresses of letters the names of persons are without the Article may be 
seen from the collections of Greek letters, from Diog. L. (e.g. 3, 22; 8, 49, 80; 9, 13) 
from Plutarch. Apophth. lac p. 191, from Lucian. parasit. 2, ete. Cf.2Jno.1. The 
address in 1 Pet. i. 1 Mérpos ... éxAextots mapemdjuois, and also Rev. i. 4, are probably 
to be referred to this rule. Even characterizing predicates dispense with the Article in 
addresses, Diog. L. 7, 7 and 8. 

15 ' 


104 
6th ed, 


114. $18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 


iil. 8; Heb. xi. 17, ete. (Hence Paul in Rom. x. 191 would un- 
doubtedly have written 2 tov "Iopannr ovk« éyva ; had he regarded 
‘Iopanr as the object; cf. 1 Cor. x. 18°; Luke xxiv. 21). In the 
genealogies Matt. i. and Luke iii. this is observed throughout, but 


. also where the names are declinable. With regard to proper 


109 
Tth ed. 


127 


names, too, the Codd. often vary. 


It may be remarked here that the proper name ‘Iovda, where it is to be 
taken as the name of a country, never runs in the Sept. 7) Iovda, ris “Iovdas, 
etc., but always 7 yn “Iovda (1 Kings xii. 82; 2 Kings xxiv. 2), or the 
inflected 7 “Iovdaia is used instead (2 Chr. xvii. 19). Hence in Matt. ii, 6 
the conjecture t7s ‘Iovda is even philologically quite improbable. 


T. A Substantive with an Article may be the predicate as well 
as the subject of a proposition, since even the predicate may be 
conceived of as a definite individual; (though from the nature of 
the case the substantive which has the Art. will more frequently 
be the subject). In the N.T. the predicate has the Art. much 
more frequently than is usually thought, Kri. 91: Mark vi. 3 ody 
ovTOs éotw 6 TéxTwov is not this the (known) carpenter ? vii. 15 
éxelvad éots Ta KoLWWoDVTAa TOV avOpwrov those are the things that 
defile etc. xii. T obt6s €otw 0o KAnpovopos, xill. 11 ov yap éore byeis 
ol Aadodvtes, Matt. xxvi. 26, 28 rovTo éott TO THmad pov, TOOT 
éott TO aia pov, Jno. iv. 42 obTos éotw 6 cwTHpP Tov Kocpov, 1 
Cor. x. 42) 6¢ wétpa Hv 6 Xpictos, Xi. 8 wavtos avdpos 7) Kepadry 
6 Xpuctos ects, XV. 56 1) Svvapus THs apaptias o vduos, 2 Cor. 
iii. 17.6 xdpios TO Tvedud éeotw, 1 Jno. ill. 4 1 dpaptia éotiv 
4 avoula, Phil. ii. 13 6 Oeds éotw 0 évepydv ; cf. also Matt. v. 13; 
vi. 22; xvi. 16; Mark viii. 29; ix.73 xv. 2; Jn0.t3Gene 
iii. 10; iv. 29;2 v. 35, 89; vi. 14, 50, o1, 63; ix. 3, 19g 
xi. 25> xivo21; "Acts tv 11 3 vii. 82 Py 10; ix. 20 ee 
Phil. iii. 8,19; Eph.i. 23; ii.14; 1 Cor. xi.3; 2 Cor. ii, 2; 1 Jno. 
iv.15; v.6; Jude 19; Rev.i. 17; iii. 17; iv. 5; xvii. 18; xviii. 
23; xix. 10; xx. 14. In the following passages the Codd. vary 
more orless: Rev. v. 6,8; Actsiii. 25; 1 Jno. ii. 22; 1 Cor. xv. 28; 
Jno.i. 21. In one instance, one of two nouns in the predicate has 
not, and the other has, the Art.: Jno. viii. 44 671 yevorns éoti 
Kai 6 matip adtod (xpevdous) he is a liar and the father of tt (false- 
hood). In Greek authors likewise the Article often occurs before 


1 Fr, ad 1. has quoted passages not to the purpose, and for Gal. vi. 6 he must have 
meant vi. 16. 
2 Probably also Jno. iv. 37 ; see Meyer. 


§ 18, ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS. a. BEFORE NOUNS. 115 


the predicate; cf. Xen. M. 8,10, 1; Plato, Phaedr. 64. ; Gorg. 


483 b.; Lucian. dial. m. 17,1; see Schaef. Demosth. III. 280; | 


IV. 35; Mtth. 706f. [A copious collection of examples (yet 
without any real advance as respects the theory) is contained in 


Dornseiffen, de articulo ap. Graec. ejusque usu in praedicato. 
Amstel. 1856. 8vo.] 


Hence it follows that the oft-repeated rule: ‘the subject of a proposition 
may be known from its having the Art.’ is incorrect, as Glassius and 
Rambach (Instit. herm. p. 446) long ago perceived. Cf. besides, Jen. Lit. 
Z. 1834, No. 207. 


8. In the language of living intercourse it is utterly impossible 
that the Article should be omitted where it is decidedly necessary 
(cf., however, § 19), or employed where it is not demanded.' “Opos 


105 


can never denote THE mountain, nor to dpos A mountain (Kiihndl sth ed 


on Matt. v.1; Jno. xix. 32 and iii. 10). The N.T. passages 
and they were formerly very numerous — in which 6, 7, 70 has been 
taken for the indefinite Article (as is pretended after the manner 
of the Hebrew Art. Gesen. Le. 655) may be easily disposed of by 
the attentive student. 1 Thess. iv. 6 wXeovexteiy ev TH TpaypaTe 
means to overreach in business (cf. im Handel u. Wandel), Jno. 
ii. 25 éyivwoxev ti fv ev TO avOp@r@ in the man with whom he 
(at the time) had to do, (in every man), Krii. 84; cf. Diog. L. 6, 
64 ipods Tov cua TaVTa TOV Taida Kal NEyoVTA ws EvpUeTTATOS ETT... 
ei7re, etc. to the person (to every one) recommending the boy, etc., 
Jno. iii. 10 od @ 6 Si8doKaros tod IoparjA Nicodemus is regarded 
as the teacher of Israel car’ é£oy7v, as he in whom all erudition is 
concentred, so that the contrast cal tadra ov ywooKxes may be 
made the more palpable (cf. Plato, Crit. 51a. cat ov dyces tavTa 
TOMY OiKaLa TPaTTEW O TH AAnOEla THs apeThs €mripedopevos Stallb. 


Plat. Euth. p.12; Valcken. Eur. Phoen. p. 552; Kru. 87). In Heb. 





vy. 11 6 Xoyos is the (our) discourse, the exposition to be presented 


by us; cf. Plato, Phaedr. 270 a. 
On the other hand, the Article may sometimes, with equal 
(objective) correctness, be either employed or omitted (Fiértsch ad 


1 Sturz, Lexic. Xenoph. III. 232, quotes passages even from Xenoph. where the Article 
is alleged to be put for 7s. Here applies what Schafer ad Plutarch. somewhere says : 
tanta non fuit vis barbarae linguae, ut graecae ipsa fundamenta convellere posset. 

2 This thoughtless rule is not vindicated by reference to such expositors as have 
attributed to the Art. in certain passages a false emphasis (Glass. 138 sqq.) or have 
pressed it unduly. The adjustment between the old view and the new, which Bohmer 
(Introd. in Epist. ad Coloss. p. 291) thinks he has discovered, is unique. 

’ Thus it is easy to explain why one language even regularly employs the Article in 


110 
Tth ed. 


128 


116 § 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 


Lys. p. 49 sq.) ; as, Jas. il. 26 76 cdua yopls rvevpatos vexpov the 
body without spirit (xwpis tod mvevpatos would be without the 
spirit — requisite for the individual body). In Luke xii. 54 good 
Codd. have étay ténte vehéXnv dvatédXovoay ato Svcpev, Whereas 
the text. rec. has tiv vedérnv. Both readings are admissible. 
With the Article the words mean, when you see the cloud (which 
appears in the sky) rising from the west, — if the direction of the 
moving cloud is from the west. In Col. i. 16 év aire éxticOn 
ta wavta signifies the (existing) all, the sum of things, all 
things collectively (das All) ; wdavta would mean, everything that 
exists, cf. Col. ili. 8 where the two are united. The meaning is but 
slightly altered by the Article; yet there is a difference between 
the two conceptions. In Matt. xxvi. 26 we have AaBwv 6 Inaods 
Tov aptov (which lay before him); but in Mark xiv. 22; Luke 
xxil. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 283 (according to the best Codd.) dprov bread, 
or aloaf. Cf. besides, Matt. xii. 1 with Mark ii. 23 and Luke vi.1; 
Matt. xix. 8 with Mark x. 2; Luke ix. 28 with Mark ix. 2. We 


106 find the same alternate omission and use of the Article in parallel 


6th ed. 


clauses: Luke xvill. 2 tov @eov pn hoBovpuevor Kai avOpemov pn 
évTpeTopevot ; VS. 27 Ta ddvvata Tapa avOpwrros SuvaTa éoTt Tapa 
T® OG; xvii. 84 Ecovtat dvo ei Kins puas* els! TaparndhOynceras, 
Kai o €tepos adbeOjcerar (one... the other; cf., however, Matt. vi. 
24; xxiv. 40f.) ; 1 Jno. ili. 18 pu ayarrapev Noy pndé TH YAOoon 
(according to the best Codd., cf. Soph. Oed. Col. 786 royo per 
écOrd, toiot & epyoow Kaka); 2 Tim. i. 10; 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15; 
Rom. ii. 29; ii. 27,30 ; Heb. 1x.4; xi. 38; Jude 16 and [Tete 
xii. 5,6; Jas. ii. 17, 20, 26; Rev. xx.1. See Porson, Eurip. Phoen. 
p. 42, ed. Lips.; Hllendt, Arrian. Al. I. 58 and his Lex. Soph. II. 
247; cf. Plat. rep. I. 882c.andd.; Xen. A. 3,4, 7; Galen. temper. 
1,4; Diog. L. 6,6; Lucian. Kunuch. 6; Porphyr. abstin. 1, 14. 
(The antithesis év otpavm Kai érl THs yhs is nowhere fully es- 


111 tablished Matt. xxviii. 18; 1 Cor. vill. 5; in both phrases the Art. 
ithe ig wanting without variant in Eph. iii. 15.) | 


But the necessity of the use and of the omission of the Article is obvious 


° . nw an 3 5 ey | / , 
in Luke ix. 13 otk ciotv Hiv wAclov ) wévre ApToL Kal iyOves dvo, vs. 16 


certain cases (oftos 6 &vOpwros, Tovs pldAovs toretca) in which another does not (this 
man, to believe in gods). Cf. Sintenis, Plut. Themist. p. 190: Multa, quae nos indefinite 
cogitata pronuntiamus, definite proferre soliti sunt Graeci, ejus, de quo sermo esset, 
notitiam animo informatam praesumentes. Such remarks A%éin. misuses, ad Mt. p. 128. 
1 This gives support to my exposition of Gal. iii. 20, to which it has always been 
objected that I have taken «is for 6 efs. 


§ 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. Lie 


\ 
AaBov rods wévre aprovs kal Tods dvo ixPias; Rom. v. 7 podis trep 
Sixacov tis dwobavetrar, trép yap Tod ayabod Taxa TIs Kal TALE arobavety 
for a righteous (upright, blameless) man ... for the good man (he, namely, 


who has proved himself such to him, his benefactor), ete. Riickert has . 


unquestionably misunderstood the passage. In Col. ili. 5 we find four nouns 
in apposition without the Article, and then a fifth, tAeovegia, marked by 
the Article, as denoting a sin well-known and especially to be avoided, 
one which the apostle further characterizes straightway,— for in 7rts ete. 
I cannot find a reference to all the preceding nouns. In 2 Cor. xi. 18 
Paul no doubt designedly wrote xavyévrau kata tiv oapKa, different from 
Kata odpxa (as an adverbial expression), though all recent critics regard 
both as equivalent. See besides Jno. xviii. 20; Rey. iii. 17, and in con- 
nection with an apposition, Rom. vill. 23 viobeciav arexdexopevor, TV a7Tw- 
Avtpwcw Tov cwparos, waiting for adoption (that is) the redemption of the 


body. 


9. The Indefinite Article, (which, when necessary, was denoted 
by tis), is expressed [disputed by Meyer on Matt. viii. 19] in cer- 
tain instances by the (weakened) numeral eis, — as was especially 
the case in the later writers ;2 as, Matt. vill. 19 spose @av eis 
ypapupartevs, etc., Rev. viii. 13 sxovga évos aerod. 

But & in Jno. vi. 9 is probably not genuine (cf. Matt. ix. 18), 
and piay oveny in Matt. xxi. 19 means perhaps one (solitary) fig- 
tree. Eis trav mapeotnxotwy in Mark xiv. 47 resembles the Latin 
unus adstantium ; cf. Matt. xviii. 28; Mark xiii. 1; Luke xy. 26 
(Herod. 7, 5,10; Plutarch. Arat. 5 and Cleom. 7; Aeschin. dial. 


107 


2, 2;% Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 249). In Jas. iv. 13 évautév éva the Met. 


numeral retains its signification ; and still more in 2 Cor. xi. 2; 
Matt. xviii. 14; Jno. vii. 21. See, in general, Boisson. Eunap. 


345; Ast, Plat. lege. 219; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 3898; Schaef. - 


Long. 399.4 In Matt. xviii. 24 eis ogecderns wuplwy TadavTor, there 


1 Weber, Dem. p. 827. Another case, in which only the last of several connected 
nouns has, for emphasis’ sake, the Article, is discussed by Jacobitz, Lucian. pisc. p. 209, 
ed. min. 

2 So also sometimes the Heb. ITN; see Gesen. Lg. 8. 655. The use of ¢fs in this 
sense is founded on the above-mentioned peculiarity of the later language, a predilection 
for expressiveness. 

8 Tis ray map. would have expressed the same meaning, cf. Luke vii. 86; xi. 1 and 
elsewhere, like sworum aliquis etc. in Latin. Both expressions are logically correct, but 
not precisely alike. Unus adstantium implies a numerical unity — one of several. 

* Bretschneider tried, very infelicitously, to reduce to this head also 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12; 
Tit.1.6 wras yuvacds avfp giving it the meaning, he shall be the husband of a wife, that 
is, amarricd man. But besides the fact that the apostle’s demand that none but mar- 
ricd men should undertake the supervision of a church is not sufficiently substantiated 
by 1 Tim. iii. 4 f., no careful writer can use cis for the indefinite Art. where an ambiguity 


112 
Tth ed, 


118 $18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 


130 is probably a designed antithesis. Also in Mark xiv. 51 var. es 

Tis unus aliquis (partitive in Mark xiv. 47; Luke xxii. 50; Jho. 

xl. 49) zis does not take away the arithmetical force of eis (Hein- 

‘ dorf, Plat. Soph. 42; Ast as above, and Plat. Polit. 532; Boisson. 
Marin. p. 15). 


Note 1. In a few particular instances the use or omission of the Article 
is characteristic of the individual style of the various writers. Thus Gers- 
dorf (Sprachchar. I. 39, 272 ff.) has shown that the four Evangelists almost 
always write 6 Xpucrds (the expected Messiah, like 6 €pxopmevos), while 
Paul and Peter employ Xpicros (as the appellation had become more of a 
proper name). In the Epistles of Paul and Peter, however, those cases 
must be excepted where a noun on which Xpuords depends precedes, (as, 
TO ebayyeAov TOU Xpirrov, 7 tropovn Tov Xp., TO aipate rod Xp.), since with 
this noun the Art. is never wanting, Rom. vii. 4; xv.19; xvi.16; 1 Cor. 
i. 6,17; vi.15; x.16; 2 Cor.iv. 4; ix.13; xii 9; Gal. i. 7; ieee 
2 Thess. iii. 5, etc. Elsewhere, too, Paul not unfrequently employs the 
Article before Xpicrds, not merely when accompanied by a preposition, 
but even when in the Nom., as in Rom. xv. 8,7; 1 Cor.i.13; x.4; xi. 38, 
etc. Similar diversity on this point occurs in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
see Bleek on v. 5. 

Note 2. MSS. vary extremely in reference to the Article, particularly 
in those passages where its use or omission is matter of indifference. Here 
critics must be guided more by the authority of the Codd. than by the 
supposed style of individual writers. Cf. Matt. xii. 1 ordyvas, Mark vi. 17 
ev dvAaxy (better attested than év ry vA.), vil. 87 (aAdAovs), x. 2 Papiraior, 
x. 46 vids, xi. 4 rOAov, xii. 83 Ovordy, xiv. 83 “ldxwBov, xiv. 60 eis pécor, 

108 Luke ii. 12 év harry, iv. 9 6 vids, iv. 29 Ews dppvos Tod dpovs, Vi. 85 tWicrov, 
6th ed. Jno. v. 1; Rom. x. 15; xi. 19; Gal. iv 24; 2 Pet. ii. 8, ete. 
_ Note 3. Strange to say, most expositors —when contrary to their custom 
they have paid attention to the Article in the N. T.—have given an erro- 
neous opinion respecting it. Bengel, to be sure, is an exception. But 
Kiihnél is an example. After Krause (a sorry voucher), he supposes that 
in Acts vii. 88 év 7H éxxAnoia, owing to the use of the Article, signifies 
certa populi concio. This meaning may be rendered probable from the 
context; but 7 ékxAX. considered grammatically merely may (as Grotius 
and others maintain) just as well denote the congregation 2x70" >ap, and 
a the Article would be as regular in that case as anywhere. Again, the 
Atl 


would be occasioned, for men speak and write in order that others may understand. The 
expression, there came a man, supposes also numerical unity, and every one thinks of 
homo aliquis as homo unus; but utay yovaika Exew cannot be used for yuvatka tev, as it 
is possible to have several wives (at the same time, or one after another) ; and consc- 
quently numerical unity alone is suggested to everybody. Besides, a person would 
hardly say, the bishop must be the husband of a wife, for, a husband, or married. 


§ 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 119 


observation of the same scholar on Acts viii. 26 is but half true. “H épnpos 
(600s) must have been used, if Luke wished to distinguish from the rest 
one particular road known to his readers. But if his meaning was, this 
(road) is (now) deserted, untravelled, lies waste, the Article would be as 
little appropriate as in German. Expositors have taken notice of the Art. 
also in 2 Thess. iii. 14 dua tHs emuoroAys, and have on its account denied 
the possibility of connecting these words with the following onpeotobe. 
Perhaps even the omission of the Article in two Codd. may be thus ac- 
counted for. Paul, however, might with perfect propriety say da ris 
éemicToAns onueodode if at the time he presumed upon an answer from the 
Thessalonians: ‘ Note him to me in the epistle (viz. which I hope to receive 
from you, or which in that event you must send me). Yet see Liinem. 

Note 4. The place of the Article is immediately before the noun to 
which it belongs; but conjunctions which cannot begin a sentence are 
regularly inserted between the Article and its noun: Matt. xi. 30 6 yap 
Luyds pov, iii. 4 4) 5€ tpody, Ino. vi. 14 ot ody avOpwro etc. This is well 
known, and needs no further illustration. Rost, 436; cf. Hm. Soph. 
Antig. p. 146. 


§ 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 


1. Appellatives, which as expressing definite objects should have 
the Article, are, not merely in the N. T. but in the best Greek 
authors, employed in certain cases without it. (See Schaefer, 
Melet. p. 4). This omission, however, only takes place when it 
produces no ambiguity and leaves no doubt in the mind of the 
reader whether the object is to be understood as definite or 
indefinite, i.e. 

a. With words which denote objects of which there is but one 
in existence, and which therefore approximate closely to proper 
names: thus duos is almost as common as 6 #Aos, and yh ( Harth) 
not infrequent for 7 yj, (Poppo, Thue. ITI. MHI. 46); hence the 
abstract names of virtues and vices, etc.,! as dpern, cwdpoctvn, 
kakia (see Schaef. Demosth. I. 329; Bornem. Xen. conv. p. 52; 
Krii. 87), likewise the names of the members of the animal body 
(Held, Plut. Aem. P. p. 248), very often dispense with the Article. 

The Article is omitted also before many other appellatives, as 


1 To which must be added the names of sciences and arts (as frmuch, see Jacob, Lucian. 
Toxar. p. 98), of magisterial dignities and offices (Schaef. Demosth. II. 112; Held, 
Plutarch. Aem. P. p. 138), of seasons of the year, of corporations (/Ze/d, 1.c. p. 238), and 
many others (Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 303 and ad Plutarch. Cleom. p. 199). See also 
Krii. 87. 


131 


109 
bth ed, 


120 § 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 


114 words, dorv (Schaef. Plutarch. p. 416; Poppo, Thue. III. I. 111; 

ith el. Weber, Dem. p. 235), dypés (Schaef. Soph. Oed. R. 630), Setrvov 
(Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 490; Bornem. Xen. conv. p. 57), even 

132 marnp, wjtnp, aderpos (Schaef. Mel. l.c. and Demosth. I. 828, also 
Kur. Hee. p.121; Plut.l.c.; Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 184), when from 
the connection no doubt can exist as to what city, field, ete. is 
meant. This omission of the Art., however, is more varied in 
poetry than in prose (Schaef. Demosth. I. 329). 

In the N. T., where in general this omission of the Art. is less 
frequent than in Greek prose,! the following instances of abstracts? 
may be noted: 1 Tim. vi. 11; Rom.i. 29; Col. iii. 8, and in partic- 
ular ducatocvvn Matt. v.10; Acts x. 85; Rom. viii. 10; Heb. xi. 33, 
etc., ayarn Gal. v.6; 2Cor. il. 8, riotis Acts vi.5; Rom. i. 5; iii. 28; 
2 Cor. v. 7; 1 Thess. v.'8, etc.,'xaxia 1 Cor. v8; Litiin oe 
i. 21, wrcoveEla 1 Thess. 11.5; 2 Pet.ii. 8, dwapria Gal. 1.17; 1 Pet. 
iv. 1; Rom. iii. 9; vi. 14, etc., cwrnpia Rom. x.10; 2 Tim. iii. 15; 
Heb. i. 14; vi. 9. Here belong also, d@ya@ov Rom. viii. 28 (cf. Fr. 
in 1.), wovnpov 1 Thess. v. 22, xadév te kai xaxov Heb. vy. 14. 

Besides these, we often find in the N. T. without the Article the 
concretes AL0s, yf (Earth), 0cos, mposwrrov, vowos, etc., and many 
others, at least when in connection with prepositions etc. they 
form phrases of frequent occurrence (Kluit, II. 877; Heindorf, 
Plat. Gorg. p. 265). We arrange them in the following list, 
founded on the most approved readings : ) 


nArws (Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 467), as in Matt. xiii. 6 #Atov dvarei- 
Aavtos (Polyaen. 6,5; Lucian. ver. hist. 2,12; Aelian. 4, 1); particularly 
when joined as genitive to another noun it expresses one idea, as avaroAy 
yAtov sunrise Rey. vil. 2; xvi. 12;, (Her. 4, 8), das HArlov sunlight Rey. 
xxii. 5 var. (Plat. rep. 5, 473 e.), ddga *dtov splendor of the sun 1 Cor. 
xv. 41; or when the sun is mentioned in an enumeration (in connection 
with the moon and stars), as Luke xxi. 25 éorat onpeta ev 7Alw Kal oeAnvyn 
Kal aotpous in sun, moon, and stars, Acts xxvii. 20 (Aesch. dial. 3, 17; 
Plat. Crat. 397 d.). 

yn, earth 2 Pet. iii. 5,10; Acts xvii. 24, éxt yys Luke ii. 14; 1 Cor. 


1 So we find in Greek authors usually yéves by nation, rAnGe, etc., in the N. T. inva- 
riably 7 yéver Acts iv. 36; xviii. 2, 24, also r@ wAHOet Heb. xi. 12. In Greek authors 
the omission of the Article before a Nom. even is not unusual, as fjAios edvero Xen. A. 
1, 10, 15; Lucian. Scyth. 4; in the N. T., on the contrary, Mark i. 82 67e &v 6 fjAu0s, 
Luke iv. 40 8vvoytos Tod HAlov, Eph. iv. 26 6 faAsos ph emdvérw. So also in the N. T. 
never geAfvy in the nominative, and there are more instances of the same kind. 

2 The assertion (/arless on Eph. S. 320) that the Article can only be omitted before 
abstracts when they denote virtues, vices, etc., as properties of a subject, is unproved, 
and cannot be proved on rational grounds. Cf. also Ariig. in Jahn’s Jahrb. 1838. I. 47. 


§19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 121 


viii. 5; Eph. iii. 15 (Heb. viii. 4), da dxpov yijs Mark xiii. 27; cf. Jacobs, 
Philostr. Imag. p. 266; Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 91; Stallb. Plat. Gorg. 


p- 257. But this word usually has the Art. when it signifies earth; in 133 
the sense of land, on the other hand, the Art. is regularly wanting when 115 
the proper name of the country follows, as Matt. xi. 24 yj Yoddpwy, [iv. 15] Th ed. 


Acts vii. 29 & yj Madidp, vii. 36 & yf Adytarov, xiii. 19 év yj Xavady, etc, 110 


(but Matt. xiv. 34 eis Hv ynv Tevvyoapér). See below, 2.b. Van Hengel’s 
remark on 1 Cor. xv. p. 199 is not to the point. 

ovpaves, ovpavol, is seldom without the Article (ef. Jacobs in the Schulzeit. 
1831, No. 119, and Schoem. Plutarch. Agid. p. 135): a. In the Gospels 
only in the phrase év otpave, év ovpavots, €€ oipavar, é€ oipavov, but by no 
means always, even in this case (cf. Matt. vi. 1,9; xvi. 19; Mark xii. 25; 
Luke vi. 23, for John except in i. 82 constantly uses é« tov oipavov); b. By 
Paul the Art. is regularly omitted in phrases like dm’ otpavoid, e€ oipavod 
(€k tov ovtpavod—van Hengel on 1 Cor. xv. p. 199—is never used by 
Paul) ; in 2 Cor. xii. 2 we find also €ws rpirov otpavod (Lucian. Philopatr. 
12) see b. below, and Peter has even in the Nom. ovpavoi 2 Pet. ili. 5, 12; 
c. The Article is never omitted in Rev. 

Guracoa, e.g. Acts x. 6, 382 mapa Oddaccav, Luke xxi. 25 7yxovons 
Oarxacons kat cadov; cf. Demosth. Aristocr. 450 ¢.; Diod. S. 1, 382; Dio 
Chr. 35, 436; 37,455; Xen. Eph. 5, 10; “Arrian. Al. 2,1, 2,and38; Held, 
in Act. Philol. Monac. I. 182 sqq. Even év épv0pa Oadrdooy Acts vii. 36; 
(on the other hand, we find the Art. in Heb. xi. 29). It regularly has 
the Art., however, when opposed to 7 y7. 

peonpBpia in the phrase kata peonuBpiav southwards Acts viii. 26, rept 
peony Bpiav xxii. 6, cf. Xen. A.1,7, 6 zpos peonuBpiav, Plat. Phaedr. 259 a. 
év peonuPp. So, in general, with the names of the quarters of the heavens, 
Rey. xxi. 13 dd dvarodGy, dd Poppa, azo vorov, ard dvopav (mpds vorov 
Strabo 16, 719, zpos éorépay D.S. 3, 28, zpos adpxrov Strabo 15, 715 and 
719; 16, 749, zpos vorov Plat. Crit. 112 ¢. Baoiitooa vorov Matt. xii. 42, 
where, however, it is a sort of proper name), or of a division of the day, 
as Luke xxiv. 29; Acts xxviii. 23; Krii. 85. 

dyopa. (cf. Bremi, Lys. p.9; Sintenis, Plutarch. Pericl. p. 80) Mark vii. 
4 kal dm dyopas, éav pn Barricwvtat, ok éoOiover. So in Greek authors 
often, as Her. 7, 223; 3,104; Lys. Agor.2; Dion. H.LV. 2117, 6; 22380, 
2; Theophr. ch. 19; Plat. Gorg. 447 a.; Lucian. adv. ind. 4 and eunuch. 1, 

rticularly in the phrase tAnfovcns dyopas Her. 4,181; Xen. M. 1,1, 10; 
Amab. 1, 8,1; Aelian. 12, 30; D.S..13, 48 a. 

dypés Mark xv. 21 épxdpevov am dypod (Luke xxiii. 26), Luke xv. 25 fv 
6 vids év dyp@. Here, however, the word means, not a single definite field 
(a70 Tod dypov), but is used generally, from the country (as opposed to the 
town, etc.). So eis dypov Mark xvi. 12, cf. Judg. ix. 27, é& dypod Gen. 
xxx. 16; 1 Sam. xii. 5, etc.; Plat. Theaet. 143a.; lege. 8, 844 c¢. 

eds occurs frequently (cf. Hm. Aristoph. nub. vy. 816; Bornem. Xen. 


6th ed. 


{22 $19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 


cony. p. 142; Jacob, Lucian. Toxar. p. 121), and beyond comparison the 
most frequently in the Epistles, without the Art., particularly when it is 
134 dependent as a Gen. upon another (anarthrous) noun, as Luke iii.2; Rom. 
ii 53 ‘villi 9; xv. 7,8) 32.3.1 Cor. 11.16 5.x. %5 2cCor. is 12 ee 
Eph. v.5; 1 Thess. ii. 18, in the phrases eds waryjp 1 Cor. i. 3; 2 Cor.i.2; 
116 Gal. i. 1; Phil. i.2; ii. 11; 1 Pet. i. 2, viol or réxva Oeod Matt. v. 9; Rom. 
ith ed. viii. 14, 16; Gal. iii. 26; Phil. ii. 15; 1 Jno. iii. 1, 2 (where these nouns 
41] are also without the Art.), with Prepositions do Oeod Jno. iii. 2; xvi. 80; 
6th ed, Rom. xiii. 1; 1 Cor. i. 50; vi. 19, év 6e6 Jno. iii. 21; Rom. ii. 17, é« Oeod 
Acts v. 39; 2 Cor. v.13; Phil. iii. 9, xara Oedv Rom. viii. 27, wapa Geo 
2 Thess. i. 6; 1 Pet. i. 4, also with Adject. 1 Thess. i. 9 Oe@ Govt kat 
dAnOwod. (In Jno.i. 1 eds jv 6 Adyos the Art. could not have been omitted 
if John had intended to designate the Avyos as 6 Geds, because in this con- 
nection eds alone would be ambiguous. But that John designedly wrote 
eds is apparent, partly from the distinct antithesis zpdos tov Oedv verses 1, 2, 
and partly from the whole description of the Adyos. Similarly stands in 
1 Pet. iv. 19 mords xtiorns without the Art.) 
mvetua aytov, seldom rvetpa Ocod Acts viii. 15, 17; Rom. viii. 9, 14; Heb. 
vi. 4; 2 Pet. i. 21; 1 Cor. xii. 3, rvetwa Phil. ii. 1, also év wvevpare Eph. 
ii. 22; vi. 18; Col. i. 8, & wv. dyiw Jude 20. “(The baptismal formula ets 
TO Ovopa TOD TaTpds Kal TOD viov Kal Tod ayiov mvevparos is cited in Acta 
Barn. p. 74 thus: eis ovoya marpos K. viod K. ayiov mV.) 
matnp, Heb. xii. 7 vids dv od mawWever marnp, Jno. i. 14 povoyevods mapa 
matpos, and in the formula Ocds rarhp (Hav) ; pyrnp only in the phrase éx 
KoiAias pytpos Matt. xix. 12. 
avnp (husband), 1 'Tim.ii.12 yuvaikt didacKew otk éritpérw, oddé adGevrety 
avdpos Eph. v. 23 (but 1 Cor. xi. 3); Luke xvi. 18 was 6 drodvwy tiv 
YUVALKA AUTOD..... mas 6 amodcAupevny ard avdpos yayov, does not 
necessarily come under this head, though the first yvvy has the Art. ; for 
the last words are to be translated: he who marries a woman dismissed from 
a husband. But in Acts i. 14 one would expect the Art. before yovaukt 
(see de W.), not so much in Acts xxi. 5; cf, however, above. 
mposwrov, e.g. Luke v. 12 reowv éxt mpdswrov, xvii. 16; 1 Cor. xiv. 25; 
ef. Sir. 1.17; Tob. xii. 16; Heliod. 7, 8 pire: éavrév éxi rpdswrov, Achill. 
Tat. 3, 1; Eustath. amor. Ismen. 7, p. 286 (Heliod. 1, 16), Acts xxv. 16 
Kata mposwrov, 2 Cor. x. 7 (Exod. xxviii. 27; xxxix. 18, ete.). 
de€id, Gpicrepd, and the like, in the formulas é« defav Matt. xxvii. 38 ; 
xxv. 83; Luke xxiii. 33, é edwvipov Matt. xx. 21; xxv. 41; Mark x.37; 
Krii. 86. 
éxxrnola, 3 Ino. 6 ot éuapripynody cov TH dyarn evirov éxxAnotas, 1 Cor. 
xiv. 4 (év éxxAnoia 1 Cor. xiv. 19, 357). 
Gdvaros, Matt. xxvi. 88 éws Oavarov (Sir. xxxvii. 2; li. 6), Phil. ii. 8, 
30 péxpt Gavarov (Plat. rep. 2,361 ¢c.; Athen. 1,170), Jas. v.20 ék @avdrov 
(Job v. 20; Prov. x. 2; Plat. Gorg. 511 c.), Luke ii. 26 pi idety Oavaroy, 


$19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 123 


Rom. vii. 13 karepyatopern Oavarov, i. 32 a&tor Oavarov, 2 Cor. iv. 11 es 
Odvarov wapadi pela, etc.; cf. Himer. 21 pera Odvarov, Dion. H. TV. 2112, 185 
2242; cf. Grimm, Buch der Weish. 8. 26. 

Ovpa, in the Plur. eri Opats ad fores Matt. xxiv. 33; Mark xiii. 29 ; 
ef. Plutarch. Themist. 29; Athen. 10, 441; Aristid. Orat. Tom. I. 43 
(on the other hand in the Sing. éwt rp @vpa Acts v.9). See Sintenis, 
Plutarch. Them. p. 181. 

vopos, meaning the Mosaie law, Rom. ii. 12, 23; iil. 81; iv. 138, 14,15; 117 
were, 20 ;°vii. 1; x. 4; xiii. 8; 1 Cor. ix. 20; Gal. ii. 21; iii. 11, 18, 21; ith ed, 
iv. 5; Phil. iii. 6; Heb. vii. 12, etc.; always as a Gen. where the prin- 112 
cipal noun has no Art.: ¢pya vopov, and the like. (In the Gospels, except 
Luke ii. 23, 24, where, however, a qualifying Gen. follows, we find con- 
stantly 6 vouos.) As to the Apocr., see Wahl, clav. 343. Also cf. Bornem. 
Acta p. 201. 

pnya, meaning God’s word, followed by @eot Rom. x. 17; Eph. vi. 17; 
Heb. vi. 5, and without #cod Eph. v. 26. 

vexpol, the dead, always (except in Eph. v. 14) in the phrases éyedpew, 
éyelpecOai, dvacrivar éx vexpov Matt. xvii. 9; Mark vi. 14, 16; ix. 9, 10; 
cao) Duke ix. 7; xvi. 315 xxivs 465 Jno. ii. 22; xi. 1,:9, 17; xx..9; 
xxi. 14; Acts iii. 15; iv.2; x. 41; xiii. 30; xxvi. 23; Rom. iv. 24; 1 Cor. 
xy. 20, ete., and also dvdoracis vexpov (both without Art.) Acts xvii. 82 ; 
xxiv. 21; Rom. i. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 12, 13, 21, 42, ete. Only in Col. ii. 12 ; 
1 Thess. i. 10 is a var. noted. (On the other hand, almost always éye(peo@as, 
dvacThnvat a0 Tov vexpov, Matt. xiv. 2; xxvii. 64; xxviii. 7.) Nexpoc else- 
where designates dead persons (Luke vii. 22; 1 Cor. xv. 15, 29, 32, also 
1 Pet. iv. 6 etc.), but ot vexpo/, THE dead, as a definitely conceived totality, 
Jno. y. 21; 1 Cor. xv. 523; 2 Cor. i.9; Col. i. 181 The Greeks, too, 
regularly omit the Art. before this word. 

pécov, in the phrase (éornoev) év peow Jno. viii. 8; Schoem. Plutarch. 
Agid. p. 126, eis pécov Mark xiv. 60 (but eis 7O pécov Jno. xx. 19, 26; 
Luke iv. 35; vi. 8), é« pérov 2 Thess. ii. 7; more commonly still where a 
qualifying Gen. follows, Mark vi. 47 év péow tis Paddoons, Luke viii. 7 

ee dxavOav, Acts xxvii. 27 xara pécov ris vuKros (Theophr. ch. 26). 
See Wahl, clay. apocr. p. 326. 

Koopos, always in the phrases dro xataBoAjs Koopov Luke xi. 50; Heb. 
iv. 3, po kar. x. Jno. xvii. 24; 1 Pet.i. 20, dd xricews Koopov Rom. i. 20, 
am apxns Koopov Matt. xxiv. 21; in the Epistles also év xéo~w Rom. v. 13; 
Meaore Vili. 45/xiv.10; Phil. ii. 15;.1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Pet. v. 9. The 
Nom. is but rarely without the Art., as Gal. vi. 14 éuol Kédcpos éoravpwrat ; 
and according to the best Codd. Rom. iv. 13 must be read: xAnpovopov 
elvat KOO }LOv. 


4 . 7 . . A 
ktiots, creation (i.e. thing created, the world), in the phrase dz’ dpyis 


1 The distinction alleged by van Hengel on 1 Cor. xy. p. 135 between vexpol and oi 
vexpot has no foundation (either in principle or in usage). 


136 


124 §19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 


aod 


Ktioews Mark x. 6; xili. 19; 2 Pet. iii. 4. Yet waoa xriots 1 Pet. ii. 13; 
Col. i. 15 (see Mey.) is everywhere distinguished from zaca 7 «rious Mark 
xvi: 15; Rom. vilie2237Col.4, 2e. 

wpa, asin 1 Jno. ii. 18 éoyarn dpa eori; particularly with numerals, as 


’ qv wpa tpirn Mark xv. 25; Jno. xix. 14, wept rpirnv opay Matt. xx.3; Acts 


118 


Tth ed. 


113 
6th ed. 


x. 9, €ws Gpas evvarys Mark xv. 33, ao exrns pas Matt. xxvii. 45, ete.; cf. 
D.S.4,15; Held, Plut. Aem. P. p. 229. (In another relation apa yeyrépros 
Aelian. 7, 18, épa Aovrpov Polyaen. 6, 7.) But so with other nouns also 
when joined to ordinal numerals, as porn dvAaxy Heliod. 1, 6; Polyaen. 
2, 35; ef. Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 152, and a0 zpwrns jyépas Phil. i. 5. 

ka.pos, in the phrases zpo Kawpov before the time Matt. viii. 29; 1 Cor. 
iv. 0, kara Karpov Rom. v. 6 (Lucian. Philops. 21) and év xaip@ Luke xx. 10 
(Xen. C. 8, 5,5; Polyb. 2, 45; 9, 12, etc.), also &v xaupa éoxarw 1 Pet.i. 5 
like é€v éoyaras yepars 2 Tim. iii. 1; Jas. v. 3. 

épxyn (Schaef. Demosth. III. 240), especially in the common phrases é7 
apyns Matt. xix. 8; Acts xxvi. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 18; 1 Jno. i. 1; ii. 7, ete. 
(Her. 2,113; Xen. C. 5, 4,12; Aclian. 2, 4), é€ dpyjs Jno. vi. 64; xvi. 4 
(Theophr. ch. 28; Lucian. dial. mort. 19, 2, and merc. cond. 1) and & 
dpxy Jno.i. 2; Acts xi. 15; (Plat. Phaedr. 245d.; Lucian. gall. 7). All 
these regularly in the Sept. also. 

xvptos, Which in the Gospels usually designates God (the O. T. Lord, cf. 
Thilo, Apocr. I. 169), and in the Epistles especially Paul’s (in accordance 
with the growth of Christian phraseology) most frequently Christ, the Lord 
(Phil. ii. 11; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 24 ff.; Krehl, N.'T. Worterb. §. 360), like 
Oeds often dispenses with the Article, particularly when it is joined toa 
preposition (chiefly in established phrases like éy xvpiw) or occurs in the 
Gen. (1 Cor. vii. 22, 25; x. 21; xvi. 10; 2 Cor. iii. 18; xii. 1) of pre- 
cedes “Incods Xpioréds (Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor.i.3; Gal. i. 38; Eph. vi. 23; 
Phil. ii. 11; ii. 20). It had already become almost a proper name. It 
has been erroneously maintained (Gabler, in his neuest. theol. Journ. LY. 


‘§. 11-24) that the meaning of the word depends on the insertion or omis- 


sion of the Article. Christ, the Lord, whom all knew as such and who 
was so often mentioned, the apostles could most easily style kvpios, just 
as eds nowhere occurs more frequently without the Article than in the 
Bible ; cf. my Progr. de sensu vocum kvptos et 6 Kvptos in Actis et Epist. 
Apostolor. Erlang. 1828. 4to. Even in Paul’s writings, however, the 
Article predominates. 

dia Boros the devil, usually has the Article. Only in 1 Pet. v. 8 we find 
6 dvridixos tuGv d5caBoXos in apposition, and in Acts xiii. 10 vie diaBoAov.! 


1”Ayyedos does not belong to the class of words of which a list is given above. When 
ysed in the Sing. without an Article, it always signifies an angel (one of the many), and ~ 
so in the Plur. &yyeAo, angels, e.g. 1 Tim. iii. 16; Gal. iii. 19, ete.; on the other hand 
oi &yyedat the angels as a class of beings. Accordingly 1 Cor. vi. 3 671 ayyéAous kpwodper 
must be translated, that we shall judge angels, —not the angels, the whole multitude of 


§19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 125 


That appellatives (particularly in the Nom.) are without the Article in 137 


titles and superscriptions also, is easily accounted for; cf. Matt.i. 1 BiBAos 
yevecews “Inood Xpiorov, Mark i. 1 dpyi) Tod etayyeXiov, Rev. i. 1 droxadvyis 
"Inood Xpurov. 


2.b. The Article is likewise often omitted before a noun followed 
by a Gen. designating the singly existing object as something apper- 


taining to this individual 4 (Schaef. Soph. Oed. ©. 1468 ; Bornem. 119 
Xen. Oyr. p. 219; Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 421; ad Plut. Agid. p. M*! 


105; Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 277 ; Herm. Lucian. conser. hist. 
p. 290),? e.g. Matt. [xvi. 18 wvnrae adov] xvii. 6 évecor él tpdswtrov 
avro@v cf. xxvi. 39 (Isa. xlix. 23 érri tpdswzrov Ths yhs 3 on the other 
hand, Matt. xxvi. 67 es To mposwrrov avrod, Rev. vii. 11), Luke 
i. 51 ev Bpayiove avtod, Rom. i.1 eis evaryyédov Peod (where Riick. 
still makes unnecessary difficulties), Eph. i. 20 év de&:a avrod (Heb. 
i.8; Matt. xx.21), Luke xix. 42 éxpvPn amo opOarpeav cov, 1 Cor. 
ii. 16 ris yap éyvw vodv kupiov, 1 Pet. iii. 12, 20; Jas. i. 26; Mark 
ee sexi. 21 ; Rom. 1..20; ii. 5; Lukei-6; ii.4,11; xiii. 19: 
Sees tlep, xi. 2; 1 Cor..x. 21; xii, 275 xvi.15; Phil. ii. 16; 
Seo. 1, 4.0.12; iv. 30; 1 Thess. v..8; 2 Thess. 1.9; ii. 2; 
2 Pet. ii. 6; ii. 10; Jude 6 (Acts vill. 5), ete. The same occurs 
very frequently in the Sept. also, as 1 Sam. i. 8,7; iv. 6; v. 2; 
Bxod. iii. 11; ix. 22; xvii.1; Cant.v.1; viii.2; Judith ii. 7,14; 
fees; ive1l;.v.8; vi. 20; 1 Macc. ii. 50; v.66; 3 Hsr. i. 26. 
(But in 1 Cor. iv. 14 ws réxva prov ayarnra it was necessary to 
omit the Article, since the Cor. were not alone the beloved children 
of Paul. In Luke xv. 29 ovd€érote évtodjy cov mapyAOov means @ 
command of thine, but in Acts i. 8 AppecOe Sdvapww éredOdvTos 
Tov ayiov mvevwatos must be translated: ye shall receive power, 
when the Holy Ghost shall have descended. )* 

‘The Article is thus omitted sometimes when a numeral defines .’ 


angels, but — angels, who, and as many of them as, fall under the kpiois. On viodecia 
Rom. viii. 23, see Fr. against Riickert. That the word in apposition sometimes has the 

Article, when the principal noun is anarthrous, has been remarked by Geel, ad Dion. 
~ Chr. Olymp. p. 70. 

1 Accordingly Jno. v. 1 éopr} tav *Iovdalwy could not be translated : the festival of the 
Jews (Passover). The Article, however, has much authority in its favor, and has been 
admitted into the text by Tdf. fed. II. yet not in ed. VII]. 

* 2 The Hebrew language, as is well known, does not in this construction employ an 
Article before the governing noun. On this Hengstenberg, Christol. II. 565, founded a 
new discovery, which Liicke on Jno. y. 1 has suitably appreciated. 

8 Gersdorf, I. 316 ff., has not duly distinguished the cases. The Article is both used 
and omitted in one and the same clause, Luke xxiii. 46 eis xeipds cov maparibeuat Td 
mvedud mov etc, 


126 §19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 


the noun more nearly; as, Acts xii. 10 dueA@ovtes rpwrny hudrakny 
cal devtépav, Mark xv. 25 Hv dpa tpitn Kal éotavpwoav avTor, xv. 


138 33 éws dpas évvarns, Luke iii. 1 €v éres mevtekadexat@ Ths iyryepovias 


120 
Tth ed. 
15 
bth ed, 


etc., 2 Cor. xii. 2; Eph. vi. 2 (Phil. i. 5 var.) ; cf. from Greek 
authors Lysias 7, 10 tpir@ érec, Plato, Min. 319 c. and Hipp. maj. 
286 b.; Antiph. 6,42; Andoc. 4,17; Diog. L. 7,135, 138, 141 sqq. 
(but 7, 150, 151, 155). See above, 1. a. under dpa, p. 124. 

By this usage may be defended also Matt. xii. 24 é 75 Been€e- 
BovrA, dpyovTe TOV Samoviwy, the reading found in all MSS. Fr. 
(ad Mt. p. 774), without the authority of MSS., substituted év B. 
T@® apx. ctc., as he deemed this omission of the Article strange. 


In Greek authors such omission of the Article, especially when the 
noun is preceded by a preposition, is by no means rare; cf. Xen. C. 6, 1, 
13 wept katadicews THS oTparias, Apol. Socr. 30 év karaAvoe tov Biov, Mem. 
1, 5, 2 éwt reXevT7 Tod Biov, 4,38,16; Plat. Phaedr. 237 c.; Lys. Agorat. 2 
ext katadvoes ToD Onpov Tod byerépov, and further on warpida cderepav abtav 
katadurovtes, Lucian. Scyth. 4 Biov airéar, Dio Chr. 38, 471 izép yeverews 
airys, Strabo 15, 719 td punKkous tov dav (17, 808), Thuc. 2, 58 dia peye- 
Gos ths moAews, 7,72. So in German, also, the Article is usually omitted 
after a preposition, e.g. tiber Auflésung des Riithsels etc. In Greek authors, 
however, in such cases even the Gen. is frequently anarthrous, or if not, 
it precedes; as, TOV xwpiwy xaderdoryns; cf. Krii. Dion. H. p. 168; Jacobs, 
Athen. p.18sq.; Poppo, Thue. III. I. 130. (Xen. C. 8, 6,16; Mem. 1, 4, 
125 Winery 176, 4. P87 6s): 


3. ¢. When several consecutive nouns! connected by cat and 
denoting different objects? agree in case and number, each of them 
regularly takes the Article if they differ in gender ;— not merely 
when they signify persons, as Acts xill. 50 tas ceBopévas yuvaixas 

. Kat TOS TpwTous THs moAews (Luke xiv. 26; Eph. vi. 2; Acts 
xxvi. 30), but also inanimate objects Col. iv. 1 7d Sikatoy Kai tHv 
icoTnTa Tots Sovrows TrapéxyecOe, Rom. viii. 2 aro Tod vowou THs awap- 
tias Kat tod Oavatov, Matt. xxii. 4; Luke x. 21; Rom. xvi. 17; 
Phil. iv. 7; 1,Cor. ii. 45 Eph.4ii1s Rev.4. 24exive (4 Bebe 
ef. Xen. C. 2, 2,9 ov 76 Odpaxe x. TH Ko7réés, Plut. virt. mul. p. 210 
va Tov dvdpa K. tiv apetnv, Dion. H. IV. 2245, 4 ei rod ToKov Kai 


1 Benseler, Isocr. Areopag. p. 290 sqq., has collected much from Isocrates on the repe- 
tition and the non-repetition of the Article with connected nouns (Subst. Adject. Par-’ 
ticip. also Infin.), but without throwing entire light on the subject. Cf. also T’holuck, 
Literar. Anzeig. 1837, No. 5. 

2 For a repetition of the Article is not admissible before connected nouns which, for 
instance, are merely predicates of one and the same person, as in Col. iii. 17 7@ 0€@ wat 
marpl, 2 Pet. i. 11 Tod kuplov judy Kat owripos 71. Xp., Eph. vi. 21; Mark vi. 3 ; Acts iii. 14. 


§ 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 127 


Ths Noyelas, 2117, 17 tas Wuxas Kai Ta drra, 2089, 14; D.S.1, 50, 

51, 86; Philostr. her. 3, 2; Diog. L. 8,18; 5,51; Herod. 2, 10, 

15; Strabo 3,163; 15, 712; Plutarch. aud. poét. 9 in. and Themist. 

8; Isocr. Areop. p. 834; Plat. Charm. p.160b.; Sext. Emp. adv. 159 
Math. 2, 58. P 

In these connections the repetition of the Article appeared gram- 
matically necessary, while at the same time the ideas connected 
are mostly such as require to be grasped separately. See under 4. 

Where, however, the ideas do not require to be sharply distin- 
guished, or where an adjective is joined to the first noun and to be 
extended also to the second, the repetition of the Article does not 
take place even when the nouns differ in gender; and the one 
Article that precedes serves alike for all the nouns that follow ; 
as, Col. ii. 22 ta évtdd\uata Kat didackarias Tov avOpwrwv, Luke 
Xiv. 23 é€eNOe eis Tas Od0vs Kal hparymovs, i. 6 Ev Tacals Tais EvTOhats 
Kal OuKat@uact Tod Kupiov, Mark xii. 83; Rev. v. 12. 

Such passages are to be found likewise in Greek authors, — and 121 
far more frequently indeed, —in poetry (Hm. Eurip. Hee. p. 76) ™ ¢t 
as well as in prose, without any very precise reference to the sense, 
e.g. Plat. rep. 9.586 d. 7h émriotnuy Kai Aoy@, lege. 6,784 6 cwhpovarv 116 
Kal cwdpovodca, 6.510c.; apol.18a.; Crat. 405 d.; Aristot. anal. Mtl ed 
post. 1,26; Thue. 1,54; Lycurg. 30; Lucian. parasit. 13; Herod. 

8, 6, 11; Ael. anim. 5, 26; cf. also Krii. Dion. p. 140, and Xen. 
Priab: p- 92, Bornem. Cyrop. p. 668. 

When such nouns are disjoined by 7, the Article is fhatiente 
repeated ; as, Matt. xv. 5 7 matpi 4) 7H wntpl, Mark iv. 21 bod Tov 
podiov %) uTo THY KNivyV, Rev. xiii. LT. 





When the connected nouns differ in number the repetition of the Article 
is naturally and ‘grammatically almost a taal ; as, Col. il. 13 év rots 
ToaparTopact Kat TH aKpoBvoria, Eph. ii. 8 7a OeAnpara THs capKos Kal TOV 
dvavorov, 1 Tim. v.23; Tit. ii. 12; Acts xv. 4,20; xxvili.17; Matt. v. 17; 
Rev. 1.19. Cf. Plato, Crito 47 c. rv ddav Kat rods éxaivous, Dion. H. IV. 
2238, 1 iro rhs wapHévov Kat Tov epi aditiv yuvakdv. Yet Xen. A. 2, 1,7 
ETLoTHwY TOY Tept Tas Takes TE Kal dTAOpaxiav, Agath. 14, 12 ras dvvapes 
kal roAenov. But 1 Cor. iv. 9 Oéarpov eyernOnpev 7d Kdcpw Kal d&yyéXous Kat 
avO@pwrots does not come under this head; the last two nouns without the 
Art. particularize the 7$ kogpw: the world, — angels as well as men. 


4. d. If, however, such nouns connected by «ai are of the same 
gender, the Article is omitted 

1) When the connected nouns are regarded as only parts of one 
whole, or members of one community (Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. 


428 $19, OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 


p. 253 ; Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 455) ; as, Mark xv. 1 ovpBovdov 
TomoavrTes of apyuepels peTa TOV TpecBuTépwv Kal YypappaTéwv 
140 (where the elders and scribes are designated as only one class of 
individuals, in distinction ae the high priests), Luke xiv. 3, 21; 
Col. ii. 8, 19: Eph. ii. 20; v.5; Phil. 1.7; i117; Acts 
BaPet: ii 10 (Xe i DD O's ee dS oO ae lo Phil. 28 €. ; Dion. 
H. IV. 2285, 5; Plutar ie aud. poét. 1 in. 12 in.). 
2) When between the first noun and its Article a Gen. or some 
other attributive intervenes, which also qualifies the second ; as, 
1 Thess. ii. 12 e¢s tv Eavtod Bacirelav Kai do€av, iii. T ert aon TH 
OrAper kai avaykn nov, Rom. i. 20 4) te aidvos avtod Stvapus Kab 
Oevorns, Phil. i. 25; Eph. ii. 5. Cf. Dion. H. IV. 2246, 9 tas 
avuT@v yuvatKas Kal Ouyatépas, 2089,4; D.S.1, 86 tv mpoevpnwevnv 
émriyperecav Kab Tyuny, 2,18; Ael. anim. 7, 29; Aristot. eth. Nicom. 
4,1,9; 7, 7,1.1. So also when the common Genitive follows the 
second noun; as, Phil. i. 20 cata tv atroxapabdoxiav Kai édrrida 
122 pov, i. T €v TH arrodoyia x. BeBatwoer Tod evayyediouv, 1 Pet. il. 25 
ith el. (on Phil. i. 19 see Mey.). Of. Benseler p. 293 sq. 


Under 1. it should be noted, that in a series of nouns forming a single — 

category, only the first has the Article ; as, Acts xxi. 25 dvAdcoecbar adrods 

. 70 aia Kal mviKToV Kat mopvelav, Eph. iii. 18 ré 7d wAGros K. pyKos K. Babos 

117 x. twos, Jno. v.38; 1 Cor. v.10; ef. Her. 4, 71 @drrover kat Tov oivoxéov k. 

bth ed. waryetpov x. trmokdpov Kk. OunKovov K. ayyeAunpopor, ete.; Plato, Euthyph. p. 
7c. For instances with proper names, see Acts i. 13; xv. 23. 


5. On the other hand, the Article is wsed in the case under 
consideration, commonly 

a. When each of the connected nouns is to be regarded as inde- 
pendent (Schaef. Dem. V. 501; Weber, Dem. 268), 1 Cor. iii. 8 
0 dutevwov Kal 6 ToTifwv év eiow, Acts xxvi. 30 dvéotn 6 Bacireds 
Kal 0 nyepov, etc., Mark ii. 16 of ypapparels at of Papicaios (two 
separate classes of Christ’s adversaries combined for one object), 
Jno. xix. 6 of apytepets Kat ot brnpérar the high priests and the 
(subordinate) attendants (with their attendants), ii. 14; xi. 47; 
Mark li. 183 vi. 21°; xi.9,18;'27 ; xii. 183 xii! T 3 xiv/4 oo ee 
1,08; villi, 24; xi.'39, 42; xii. 11; xv. 6, 9;) xx. 20; "eee 
xxii. 4; Acts iv. 23; vi. 4,18; xiii. 48; xv. 63 xxii. 14> xxv 
Rom.‘vi, 19; Eph. iii. 10,12; 2 Cor. xiii. 2; Phil. 1v. 65 eee 
iv. 65 Jas. iii. 113.1 Jno. ii. 22,24; iv: 63*vi 63> Rev, 2visuam 
vii. 12; xiii. 10,16; xxii. 1; cf. Xen. athen. 1,4; Lys. Agorat: 23 

1 In this case, even when the nouns are of different gender, as in Lysias in Andoc. 17 
mep ra GAAST pia fepd kal Eoptras jo€Be. Cf. above, 3. 


§ 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 129 


adv. Nicom. 3; Isocr. Areop. p. 352; permut. 7386; D.S. 1, 30 141 
(Sua thy avvdplav Kal THY ordi THs aTaons TpoPpys) 38, 48; 5, 29; 
17, 52; Plut. virt. mul. p. 214 érepe thv yuvaixa x. THY Ovyarépa, 
Ael. anim. 7, 29; Diog. L. 5, 52;! Weber, Demosth. p. 3965. 

So especially when the two nouns are connected by te... «ai 
or kal... kai, and thus more prominently exhibited as independent 
(Schaef. Demosth. III. 255; IV. 68) Luke xxiii. 12; Acts v. 24; 
xvii. 10, 14; xviii. 5; Phil. iii. 10; Heb. ix. 2; cf. Ael. anim. 7, 
29; Theophr. char. 25 (16); Thuc. 5,72; Xen.C.7,5,41; Mem. — 
1, 1,4; Aristot. pol. 3,5; Isocr. Demon. p. 1 and 12; permut. 
738; D. S8.1,69; 4,46; Lucian. fug. 4; Arrian. Ind. 34, 5, ete. 
Even in this case, however, if there be no special antithesis Greek 
authors (according to good Codd.) sometimes omit the Article ; 
see Poppo, Thuc. I. 196 sq.; II. I. 595; Geel, Dion. Chr. Ol. p. 
295; cf. Xen. M.1,1,19 rad Te Aeyoueva Kat mpatTopeva (where, 
as an antithesis to these two participles, immediately follows «at 
Ta ovyn Bovrevoweva) Thuc. 5,37; Plat. rep. 6,510 c. and Phaed. 123 
78b.; Dion. H. IV. 2242,2; Diod. S. 1,50; 2, 80; Arrian. Ind. "hed. 
eee io Chr. 7,119; Mr. Ant. 5,1. Cf. also Mtth. 715. 

When the influence of a disjunctive particle comes in, the repe- 
tition of the Article is obviously necessary ; as, Luke xi. 51 peta€v 
Tov Ovotactypiov Kai Tod oikov, Matt. xxiii. 35; 1 Cor. xiv. T mas 
yvooOnceTat TO avrovpevor 7) TO KiOapifopevov ; Matt. x. 14; xvii. 
20; xxiii. 17,19; Mark xiii. 32; Luke xiii. 15; xxii. 27; Jno. iii. 
19; Acts xxviii. 17; Rom.iv.9; 1Cor.xiv.5. Of. Isocr. permut. 479 
p-. 746. 6th od. 

b. When the first noun is followed by a Gen., and the second, 
therefore, is appended to an independent group; as, 1 Cor. i. 28 
Ta ayevh TOD Koopov Kal Ta eEovOevynpéva, V. 10. 

If each of the connected nouns has its Genitive, the repetition 
of the Article before the second noun is unnecessary, since the two 
nouns are separated without it; as, Phil. i. 19 d:a ris tuadv Sencews 
Kal emuyopnylas Tod mvevpaTos, etc. 

Note 1. Variants occur in a very great number of passages, e.g. Matt. 
xxvil.38; Mark viii. 31; x. 33; xi.15; Luke xxii.4; Acts xvi. 19; Rom. 
iv. 2, 11,19; 1 Cor. xi. 27; 1 Thess. i. 8. 


1 We find the Article both used and omitted before nouns of the same gender in 
Arrian. Epict. 1,18, 6 thy ipw Thy diaxpituchy Tay AcuKaY Kal weAdvov ... TAY ayabdv Kal 
Tav Kakav. Somewhat differently in Acts vi. 9 tives T&v ex Tis cvvaywyis THs Aeyomevys 
AiBeprivwy Kat Kupny. rat Adrckavdp., kal tay dard Kiduclas xal’Aotas, where Kupny. and 
*AAcE. combined with AiBepr. constitute one party (with a synagogue in common), as 
the other synagogue corporation was formed of the Asiatic and Cilician Jews. 

17 


130 § 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 


Moreover, the view taken of the mutual relation of the connected nouns 
142 may frequently be a matter of indifference; it depends upon the writer 
how he will regard it; (in 1 Thess. i. 7 we find év 77 Maxedovia Kat év ™m 
“Axate but in 8 kai “Axaia). Hence there are passages where the reader 
would not miss the Article, e.g. 1 Tim. v. 5;1 while in others it might 
perhaps be used, as in Eph. ii. 20 (Mey. inl.). See in general, Engelhardt, 
Plat. Menex. p. 253; Poppo, Thuc. II. I. 395. 
In Tit. ii. 13 érupavera ris d0€ys Tod peydAov Ge0d kal cwrhpos Hav “Incod 
Xp., for reasons which lie in the doctrinal system of Paul, I do not regard 
gwtypos as a second predicate by the side of Oeod, as if Christ were first 
styled 6 péyas Geds and then cwrjp. The Article is omited before cwrfpos, 
because the word is made definite by the Genitive 7uév, and the apposition 
precedes the proper name: of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” 
Similar is 2 Pet. i. 1, where there is not even a pronoun with gwrjpos. So 
124 also in Jude 4 two different subjects may be referred to, since k«vptos, as 
ith ed. made definite by 7udv, does not require the Article in order to mean ‘Iycoty 
Xpiorov os éore k’ptos nudv. (In 2 Thess, i. 12 we have simply an instance 
of xvptos for 6 Kvptos,) 
119 Note 2. The omission of the Article in Luke x. 29 ris éori pov zAyotor, 
6th el. and 36 ris rovrwv ... tAnoiov Soxel cor yeyovevat Tov éu7., seems strange, as 
| one would have expected 6 wAnaiov (see Markland, Eur. Suppl. 110), since, 
moreover, wAnoiov is an adverb. A similar instance has been quoted by 
Déderlein (Synon. I. 59) from Aeschyl. Prom. 938 éuot & Aaccov Zyvos 
7 pnoev pede, where pydev appears to be put for rod pydev. In both the 
passages from Luke, however, the adverb also is allowable: who is near 
me? See Bornem. in 1. 


1 As the words run: mpospéver tats Sehoeot Kal Tals mposevxais, prayer is distributed 
into its two kinds ; without the repetition of the Article, prayer and petitions would be 
blended into one. , 

2 In the above remarks I did not mean to deny that owrfjpos nay can grammatically 
be regarded as a second predicate dependent on the Article tod ; only, doctrinal con-- 
viction, deduced from Paul’s teaching, that this apostle could not have called Christ the 
great God, induced me to show that there is also no grammatical obstacle to taking «at 
owt. ... Xpiorov by itself as a second subject. Since the anonymous writer in Tholuck’s 
Liter. Anzeiger (as referred to) has not proved that, according to my acceptation of the 
passage the Article must have been repeated before owrijpos (the passages quoted as 
parallel are not analogous, see Fr. Rom. II. 268), still less that to introduce Christ as 
6 wéyas Oeds is in harmony with Paul’s representation of the relation of Christ to God, 
I adhere to the above interpretation. Examples, such as those quoted § 19, 2, will at 
once satisfy the impartial inquirer that the Article was not necessary before owrijpos ; 
and the fact that elsewhere owrnp is applied also to God, is nothing to the purpose. 
Enough that cwrhp jay our Saviour is a perfectly definite predicate, just as his face is; 
mpéswrov is applicable to a far greater number of individuals than owthp. The words 
S.38: If the expression owthp huey invariably occurred in the N. T. of a single definite 
individual only etc. contain an arbitrary assumption. Matthies has contributed to the 
discussion nothing decisive. 


§ 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 181 


§ 20, ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 


1. Attributives (Adjectives, Genitives, or Adjuncts formed with 
Prepositions!) annexed to a noun which has the Article, are placed 
either 

a. Between the Article and the noun, as 0 ayalos avOpwros 
Matt. xii. 35, To éwov Gvowa Matt. xviii. 20, TO Gyvov Tvedpa, 7 Tod 
Beod paxpoOvuia 1 Pet. ili. 20, 7) dvw Krjows Phil. ili. 14, 7 ev PoBo 
dy avactpopy 1 Pet. il. 2, 77 wap’ euod dvabjxn Rom. xi. 27, 4 
Kat éxroynv mpolects ix. 11, 70 Kawvov adTod pynpetov Matt. xxvii. 
moecr 2 Pet. ii. 7; Heb. v.14; vi. 7. Or, 

b. After the noun; in which case 

a. If they are adjectives,? or adjuncts with prepositions, they 
uniformly take the repeated Article, but 

8. If Genitives of nouns, they usually take it only aa. when 
these additions are to be strengthened, or to be made more promi- 
nent (1 Cor. i. 18 0 Adyos 6 Tod atavpod, Tit. ii. 10 rH divdacKariav 
THY TOV GwTHpos nuav ; see Schaef. Melet. p.8,72sq.; Mtth. 727),° 
particularly when relationship is added for distinction’s sake, as 
Jno. xix. 25 Mapia 7 tod Krwra,* Acts xiii. 22 daPid 6 tod ‘Ieccai, 


1 Genitives of personal pronouns are joined to nouns, as is well known, without the 
aid of the Article, as 6 mats wov. They blend, as it were, with the substantive. 

2 It is obvious that this applies only to adjectives used as attributives to substantives. 
4n Luke xxiii. 45 eoxlo0n 7d Katamétacua tov vaov péoov, the word péoor belongs to 
the verb: was rent ... in the middle; 7d wéoov karamétacua would have a different mean- 
ing. So the similar adjectives of space or number écxaros, 8Aos, udvos, dAlyos always 
appear without the Artiele when they are not really epithets, — either a. after the noun, 
as Matt. xvi. 26 av toy Kéomov bAov Kepdhan if he gain the whole world (the world wholly), 
x. 30 af rpixes T. Kepadr7s Taga ApiOunueva eiciv (ix. 35; Jno. v. 22; Plato, epin. 983 a.), 
Matt. xii 4 obk efbv hv hayeiv ... ef wh rots fepetow pdvos; or b. before it, Matt. iv. 23; 
Heb. ix. 7 udvos 6 apxsepeds, Jno. vi. 22; see Gersdorf, I. 371 ff., who has collected ex- 
amples with little judgment. Cf. Jacob, Lucian. Al. p. 51; Ari. 104 f.; Rost, S. 435. 

8 Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 55; Mdv. p.12. This construction, however, gradually lost 
its force, and many authors almost invariably put the Article before such a Genitive 
even when no emphasis is intended. So, in particular, Demosth., Isocr. and Xen. 
Ephes. The orators might have some reason for this in spoken discourse. Cf. Siebelis, 
Pausan. I. 17. 

4'The precise meaning of the above is: among the women called Mary, the (particular 
one) of Clopas (the wife of Clopas). The Article is not used where the annexed Gen- 
itive is not intended to convey any sharp distinction, as Luke vi. 16 "Iovdav laxéBou, 
Acts i. 13 “IdkwBos ’AAgatov, just as Her. 1, 59 Avkodpyos ’ApictoAaldew and Dion. H. 


1438 


comp. 1 Atovuctov ’AAetdvSpou (in both passages, however, Schaef. would insert the Arti-° 


cle), or Aristot. polit. 2, 6 ‘ImmdéSauos Edpupavtos, and Thue. 1, 24 @ddwos EparoxActSou 
(Poppo, Thue. I. 195), Thilo, Act. Thom. p. 3; ef. Hm. Vig. 701. On the other hand, 
in Luke xxiv. 10 we must unhesitatingly read, with the most approved MSS., Mapia 4 


182 § 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES 


120 Matt. iv. 21; x. 2; Mark iii. 17; 88. when the noun has already 

Oth el. Fes (personal) Genitive, as Matt. xxvi. 28 To aia pou TO THs KaLvAS 
d:aOjxns, yet the Art. here is not quite established. 

c. Rarely such attributives, particularly if adjectives, are put 
before the noun and its Article ; as, Acts xxvi. 24 peyadyn 7H hova 
edn see above § 18, Matt. iv. 23 wepuijyev év Ody TH Tadsrala. 

144 Incase a. more than one attributive may be inserted between 
the Article and the noun ; as, 0 ay.os Kai dwwpos advOpwros. The 
Article then is usually not repeated. With qualifying Genitives 
or adjuncts appended by means of Prepositions, there are instances 
of the repetition of the Article; as, Luke i. 70 8a oréuatos Tov 
ayloy TOV aT ai@vos TpopnTorv, | Pet. iv. 14 70 THs doEns Kal TO TOD 
Geod mvedua, i.e. the Spirit of glory and (consequently) the Spirit 
of God, — the Spirit of glory, which is no other than the Spirit of 
God himself. Similar is Thuc. 1, 126 év 7H Tod Avs TH peyiorn 
eop77, and Plat. rep. 8, 565d. wept ro év “Apxadia To Tod Avs tepov, 
only that cai is wanting here. 

In case b. also, there is no objection to the accumulation of 
adjuncts, as Heb. xi. 12 7) dupos % mapa To yeidos Tis Caddcons, H 
avaplOunros, Rey. ii. 12 tHv poudatav tiv Sictowov THv ofetav, Krii. 
102; except that when the last are not connected by «ai (§ 19, 4) 
the Article must be repeated.! 

It will be necessary to explain here more minutely, and to con- 
firm by examples, the case b. a. 

126 a. Adjectives and possessive pronouns with the Article are 

ih el. placed after the noun, either 

Quite alone, as Jno. x. 11 6 woupiy 6 Kardos, Acts xii. 10 emt Hv 
TvAnY THY cLOnpav, JNO. Vil. 6 6 KaLpos 6 ewos, i. 9; iv. 11; xv. 1; 
Luke ii. 17; iii. 22; viii. 8; Acts xix.16; Eph. vi. 18; Col.1. 21; 
2 Tim. iv. 7; 1 Cor.vii. 14; xii. 2,31; 1 Jno.i.3; Jas.1.95 197 
(in which case the adjective sometimes is subjoined for greater 
perspicuity, ef. particularly Jas. iii. 7, sometimes is to be made 
more emphatic, Bornem. Lue. p. xxxvi.; Mdv. 11). Or 

When the governing noun is amplified by a Gen. or in some 
other way, as Matt. iii. 17 6 vids pou 6 ayarnrds, 2 Cor. vi. T dud 
TOV OTAWY THS SuKaLocvyns tov SeELaV Kal apicTepav, Jno. Vi. 13 Tay 
mévte dpTwyv TOV KpiOivwv, Matt. vi. 6; Luke vii. 47; Tit. i. 11; 
"Iax@Bov. In general cf. Fr. Mr. p. 696 sq. The collocation of words in Pausan. 2. 
22, 6 Tijs Popdvews NidBys does not occur in the N. T. 

1 A rare repetition of the Article, in accordance with the above rules, occurs in Rey. 
Xxi. 9 HAGev eis ex THY EmTda wyyéAwy Tav éexdvTWY Tas ExTa pidAdas (Tas) yewodoas (THY) 
éxta TAnyay TaY eTXATWY. 


§ 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 183 


Heb. xiii. 20, ete. (The N. T. writers liked to avoid the construction 
Tov povoy. Beod viov as intricate ; cf. Jno. iii. 16; 1 Jno. iv. 9.) 
In the text. rec. of 1 Jno. v. 20 1) G7) atiwvios we find the adj. 


121 


without the Article after the noun. The better Codd., however, ™ «4 


omit the Article before Sw also. The common reading in itself 
considered is by no means to be rejected, as in such cases later 
writers begin to omit the Article (Bhdy. 8. 825),! although the 
examples from Long. past. 1,16; Heliod. 7,5; Diod. 8S. 5,40 are 
not quite parallel to that from John. Besides, fw) aiwv. had 
already come to be regarded as a single idea, cf. Jno. iv. 836. In 
Luke xii. 12, Griesb. and Schott have 76 yap mvedua aytov, but 
Knapp and all recent editors give To yap ayov mvedpa, without 
noting any variants. In 1 Cor. x.3; Gal.i.4 70 Bpadmua rvevpatixov 
and 6 ai@v movnpds are to be considered as blending together into 
one leading idea; and av’ro and éveor., as frequently, have been 
inserted as epithets between the Article and the Substantive ; ef. 
1 Pet. i.18. See also Heb. ix. 1 7d dytov xoopixdv. With Jno. 
v. 36 éy@ éyw THY paptuplay pel&o Tod 'Iwdvvov (a predicate: the 
witness that I have is greater than, etc., Rost 435) may be com- 
pared Isocr. Philipp. ¢. 56 10 c@pya Ovntov drravtes Eyowev. Further, 
cf. Schaef. Plut. V. 30. 

b. The Article is used with subjoined amplifications of the 
principal noun consisting of a noun and preposition: 1 Thess. i. 8 
n wloTis tuav 1 Tpos Tov Oeov, 2 Cor. viii. 4 THs Siaxovias THs ets 
Tous ayious, Jas. 1. 1 tats pudais tails ev TH SvacTopa, Acts xv. 23 


145 


Tois Kata THY Avtidyeray ... adeAots, Tois €& COvOV, xxiv. 5 Tact 


tots lovsaiows Tots Kata TV oiKoupéevny, iii. 16 ; iv. 2; viii. 1; xi. 22; 
xxvi. 4,12, 22; xxvii.5; Mark iv. 31; xiii. 25; Jno.i.46; Luke 
Sano: hom. iv. 11; vii. 5, 10; viii. 89;'x. 5; xiv. 19; xv. 26; 
aie Cor; ii, 11. f, > .avih7 xvi. 1-3: 2: Cor: ii. 63 vile 12; 
Peederext, So s°Phils ill’; iii, 95 1-Thess. ii. 1; iv.10; 1 'Tim.i.14; 
geen, Ls “Eiph. i. 15; Rev. xiv. 17; xvi. 12; xix. 14; xx. 13. 
(Variants occur in Acts xx. 21; Luke v. 7; Jno. xix. 38; Rom. 
x.1.) For examples from Arrian (yet the like are to be found 
in every page of the Greek prose authors) see Ellendt, Arrian 
Al. I. 62. 
This mode of annexing an attributive (by bringing it in after- 
: wards), as the more simple, is far more frequent in the N.'T. than 
the insertion of it between the Article and the noun. The LXX. 


1 According to the testimony of good Codd. even the earlier writers in certain cases 
did the same; cf. Schneider, Plat. civ. II. 319, and Ari. in Jahn’s Jahrb. 1838. I. 61. 


ea 
Tth ed. 


146 


134 § 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 


also, as a slight inspection will show, have regularly observed the 
use of the Art. in this case. } 

c. Participles, as attributives, in as far as they have not entirely 
dropped the notion of time, are not treated in this case altogether 
like adjectives. They take the Article only when some relation 
already known or especially noteworthy (is qui, quippe qut) is 
indicated, and consequently the idea expressed by the participle 
is to be made more prominent, e.g. 1 Pet. v.10 6 eds... 6 Karéoas 
Nas els THY aiw@vioy avTod Sofav ... ddALyov TaOdvTas, avTos KaTAp- 
ticat God ... who hath called us unto his eternal glory, ... after 
that we have suffered a while etc., Eph. i. 12 eis 7O etvae typas ets 
emawov Tovs TpondmiKoTas é€v TO Xp. we, the we who (quippe qut) 


122 have hoped (as those who have hoped),.cf. vs. 19; Heb. iv. 8; vi. 18; 
bh el. Rom. viii. 4; 1 Cor. viii. 10; Jno. i. 12; 1 Jno. v.18; 1 Thesse ieee 


iv.d; 1 Pet.i.3; iil. 5; Jas. iii. 6; Acts xxi. 385 cf. Dionmebenee 
1922; Polyb. 3, 45, 2; 3, 48, 6; Lucian. dial. m. 11, 1 a. 

On the other hand, the participle occurs without the Article in 
Acts xxii. 27 tov avépa todtov cudArnpbévta tro THV Iovdaiwv hune 
virum comprehensum (who was seized, after he had been seized), 
2 Cor. xi. 9 vorépnwad prov mposaveTrA\pwocav ot adeAdol €dOovTes 
avo Maxeédovias the brethren, after they had arrived, Acts iii. 26 
avacticas 6 Oeds Tov Taida avTod aréaTteirev avTov, ete., God, hav- 
ing raised up (causing to appear) his Son, sent him, etc. (on the 
other hand, Heb. xiii. 20), Rom. ii. 27 Kpuvet 1) €« hucews axpoBvatia 
Tov vouov Terovca o€ etc., if or thereby that it fulfils ete. Cf. Luke 
xvi. 14; Jno. iv. 6,39, 45; 1 Cor. i. 7; xiv. T; 2: Cora aeer. 
x.2; xii. 23; 1 Pet.i.12 (Fr. Mt. p. 432; Stallb. Plat. apol. p. 14). 
So Acts xxi. 8 els Tov otxov Pidrlarmov Tod evayyedtaTod ovTos €k TOV 
érta is to be translated: qui erat, as being one of the seven (yet 
some authorities give rod here, which introduces into the passage 
a false emphasis), Rom. xvi. 1 cf. Demosth. Con. 728 c. Ev&i@eov 
Touvtovi OVO ajiv cvyyevn, D. S. 17, 88 6 rats dv && érav, 3, 23 Tov 
mintovra xaprov dvta Kadov, Philostr. Apoll. 7,16 év 7H vync@ 
avidpe otan mporepov, Thue. 4, 3; 8,90; Demosth. Polycl. 710 b. ; 
Isocr. Trap. 870; Lucian. Hermot. 81; dial. m. 10, 9; Alciphr. 
3,18; Strabo, 3,164; Long. 2,2; Philostr. Her. 3, 4 and Sophist. 
By’ 4, bel el 


In Eph. vi. 16 ra Bédy 7a rervpwpeéva the Article is not fully established 
(Lchm. has cancelled it) ; if it is not genuine, the meaning of the passage 
is: the darts, when they burn, or though they burn (to quench the darts of 
Satan... burning as they are). In 2 Jno. 7 épxdpuevoy belongs to the 


§ 20, ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 1385 


predicate ; and in Gal. iii. 1 “Incots Xp. poeypady év tyiv éoravpwpevos is 128 
to be translated: Jesus Christ as one who has been crucified ; cf. 1 Cor. Th el 
i. 23; (otherwise in Matt. xxviii. 5). 
The above passage, 1 Pet. v. 10, 6 Oeds, 6 kadéoas Huds ... ddtyov rabdv- 
ras is peculiarly instructive respecting the use and the omission of the Arti- 
cle with Participles. Whether the Article is to be used or omitted before 
the Participle, depends sometimes on the subjective view of the writer. 147 
Rom. viii. 1 rots év Xpior@ “Iyood, pa) kata odpKxa mepurarovow etc., with a 
comma after Incod, means: to those who are in Christ Jesus, inasmuch as they 
walk not after the flesh. On the other hand, rots pu) kara oapKa repizarovow, 
with greater prominence of the apposition, means: to those who are in Christ 
Jesus, as persons who walk not etc., to those who walk not etc.; cf. Mtth. 
718. The whole clause, however, p27 ... tvedpa is undoubtedly spurious. 
When a Participle with the Article is subjoined in apposition to a noun, 
or put in the Vocative (as if in apposition to ov), it sometimes denotes 
ridicule or disapprobation, or prominently points out some peculiarity as a 
subject of ridicule or disapprobation. Expositors of Greek authors have 
frequently attributed to the Article itself a derisive force (articulus irrisi- 
ont inservit, Valcken. Eur. Phoen. 1637; Markland, Eurip. Suppl. 110; 123 
Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. p. 12, and Apol. p. 70); this, however, lies only in Mth ed 
the thought and its special prominence (and in speaking may also be con- 
veyed by the voice). Here, for instance, may be referred from the N. T. 
Rom. ii. 1 ra yap aira tpacces 6 Kpivwv, Matt. xxvii. 406 xkaradvov 
TOV vaov... KaraPynOt ard Tov orarpod [Jno. v. 12] etc. See Hm. Eur. 
Alcest. 708 ; Mtth. 722. 


2. To the rule explained under b. there are unquestionable — 
indeed, well-nigh standing — exceptions, viz. ) 

When an adjunct (consisting of a noun and preposition) which 
in reality forms with the substantive but one leading idea, is to be 
linked to the preceding noun simply by the voice, the grammatical 
connective of the written language (i.e. the Article) is wanting, 
e.g. Col. i. 8 dnA@cas Hyly THY KuaY ayarny év TrevpaTte your love 
in the Spirit, see Huther, 1 Cor. x. 18 Prerere tov ‘Icpanr Kata 
adpKa (opp. to ‘Iop. kata mvedpwa), 2 Cor. vii. T Tov buav Grov w7rép 
éuod, Eph. ii. 11. This takes place especially, 

a. In the oft-recurring apostolic (Pauline) phrase, év Xpictd 
"Incod, or év kupiw, or Kata cdpKa, as Col. i. 4 axovcavtes Ti Ti- 
oTw vpov év Xp.'I. kal thy ayarny Ti eis TavTas Tovs wylous, Eph. 
i. 15 dxovoas tHhv Ka? buds Tictw év TO Kuplw’I. Kal THY ayaTrnV 
THY els TaVTas TOUS aylous, Rom. ix. 3 Tay cuyyevOv Lov KaTa cdpKa, 
1 Thess. iv. 16 of vexpol ev XpictS avactncovta: tparov the dead 
in Christ (1 Cor. xv. 18), with which in vs. 17 is contrasted 7peis 
ot eves, for these are Cartes ev Xpioct@ (of the resurrection of 


186 § 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 


non-Christians Paul has here no occasion to speak), Phil. ii. 145 
Kph. iv. 1 (where Paul, if év cupi@ is to be connected with apaxanra, 
would have placed this latter word after buds; decpwos ev Kupi@o 
129 gives the proper emphasis to the admonition that follows), 11. 21; 
ihe vi, 21. Not unlike this is 1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1 7H éxxdgola 
148 Ococarovixéwy ev Geo Tatpi Kai Kupiw, etc. Likewise in 1 Tim. 
vi. 17 tots mAovctois ev TO vdv aiwvet are to be connected. Of. 
besides, Acts xxvi. 4; Rom. xvi. 8, 8,10; Eph. ii. 15; Phil. i. 1. 
b. When the primitive verb was construed with a particular 
preposition, or when the adjunct is half-implied in the noun (Held, 
Plut. Timol. p. 419; Kru. 103), as Eph. iii. 4 dévvacOe vojcas thy 
cvvecty pov €v TO puvoTynpiwm (Josh. i. 7; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12; Hsr.i. 
31) cf. Dan. i. 4 cuvévtes ev wacy copia; Rom. vi. 4 cvveradnpev 
avT@ dia TOD Barticpatos els TOV OavaTtov (vs. 3 €BatrrTicOnpev eis TOV 
Odvatov avtov), Phil. i. 26 dua ths éuis mapovaolas radu pos twas, 
2 Cor. ix. 138 ardoryTt THs Kowwvias Els ad’Tous Kal eis TavTas, Col. 
124 i. 12 (Job xxx. 19) cf. Bahr in loc. ; Eph. iii. 13 é tats Orinpect 
shel. wou iaép dwav (cf. vs. 1), 2 Cor. i. 6; Col. i. 24. So Polyb. 3, 48, 
11 tv Tdv dyd@v adroTpPLOTHTA pds “Pwpaiovs, D.S. 17, 10 ths 
"AnreEdvopov tapovelas éri tas OnBas, Her. 5, 108 7) ayyerla repli 
Tov Sapdiov, Thue. 5, 20 9 ésBory és tTHV’ Artixjy 2,52 4 cvyKopdy 
ex Tov aypov eis TO dotv 1, 18; Plutarch. Coriol. 24 4) tov warpi- 
Kio Ouspévera pos Tov Shpov, and Pomp. 58 at mapakdyjoes vrép 
Kaicapos. From the LXX. compare Exod. xvi. 7 tov yoyyvopov 
tpav ert T@ Oe, which Thiersch considers as paene vitiosum ! 
Case a. is to be referred no doubt to the colloquial language, 
which, having the more expressive aid of the voice, scarcely em- 
ployed the Article anywhere; whereas the literary language, for 
the sake of precision, could less easily dispense with it. Yet from 
the literary language a few instances even of this omission of the 
Article may be produced; cf. Polyb. 5, 64, 6 dva tHv Tod Tatpos 
dofav é€x rhs dOdjcews, Sext. Emp. hypot. 8, 26 &rodpev wepi tod 
ToTou Tpos axpiPevav for Tod mpds a., as appears from what precedes, 
Thuc. 6,55 @s éte Bwpos onuaiver Kal 4) oTHAN EPL THS TOV TUpavveD 


1 According to Paul’s view we are likewise probably to take 6 Slkaos ek mlotews 
together in the quotation from the O. T. in Rom. i. 17 and Gal. iii. 11. In the former 
passage he wishes to establish by the words of the prophet the proposition d8:caocivn 
Geod ex mistews etc., and not 7 (wh ex Sixaoovyns. Cf. Rom. x. 16 7 é« mioTews dixarootyy. 
But in Heb. x. 38 é« wicrews must undoubtedly be joined to ¢hoera ; see Bleek. 

* Accordingly, in Rom. vy. 2 there would be no objection in this respect to connecting 
7H wiotes (which however Lchm. and Tdf. have rejected) eis thy xdpw tatrnv. ‘There 
are, however, other difficulties. 


§ 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 137 


adixias (where Bekker from conjecture has inserted 7 before zrep/), 
ef. Krii. Dion. p. 153 ; Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 234. 

In classifying such constructions, however, we must be cautious ;! 149 
many that seem to come under this head we shall find, on closer 130 
examination, to be different; cf. Ellendt, Arrian. al. I. 315. Tth od, 

a) Sometimes, for instance, a slight transposition of the words 
may have ensued, as 1 Tim. i. 2 Tipodéw yonciw téxve €v TricTeL, 
where the words €v miotec construed according to the sense with 
yvnoi@ would mean genuine in faith; cf. Xen. A. 4,3, 23 Kata ras 
mposnkovoas bxOas eri TOV ToTAaMOV, 1.c. KATA TAS ETL T. T. TPOSHK. 
dy@as. For several reasons, however, it is preferable to take év 
miovet there as an adjunct to the compound notion, — genuine child. 

On the other hand, in 1 Pet. i. 2 it may be that the qualifying 
clauses kata mpoyvwow Ocod... cis UmaKony Kal pavticporv etc. 
should be joined to é«XexTots. 

b) Elsewhere the adjunct belongs as a closer limitation directly 
to the verb, as Col. i. 6 ad’ js juepas jKovcate Kal éréyvwte TiV 
xapw Tod Geod év adnOeia (see Biihr and Mey.), Rom. iii. 25 ov 
mpoéeVeTo 0 Oeds idacTypiov dia TicTews ev TO avToV aiparte (see Fr. 
and de Wette in 1.) ; viii. 2 0 vouos Tod trrvevpatos THs Gwns ev XpicT@ 

I. jrevbépwocé pe aro TOD vomov THs duaptias Kal tod Pavdtov 
where it is evident, partly from the antithesis vouos tod Oavatov (to 
which vouos ths fwis correctly corresponds), and partly from vs. 3, 
that év Xpior@ must be connected with 7revPépwoe, as Koppe has 
done; Phil. i. 14 tovs wdelovas tav adehpav ev Kupiw temoOoTas 
Tois decpots pov (cf. a similar construction in Gal. v: 10 zézo@a 195 
els Duas ev Kvpi@ and 2 Thess. ili. 4), as év cupém has a real meaning Mth ob 
only when joined to werovotas ; Jas. iii. 13 SeEatw é« Tis Karis 
avactpopis Ta épya avtod év mpaiitnts codpias, where the words év 
mpavtntt copias are an explanatory adjunct to é« tis Karts ava- 
otpopys. Further, cf. Rom. v. 8; 1 Cor. ii. 7; ix.18; Phil. iii. 9; 
ive19, 21; Col. i.9; Eph. ii. 7; iii. 12; 1 Thess. ii. 16; Philem. 
20; Heb. xiii. 20; Jno. xv. 11, see Liicke; 1 Jno. iv.17; Jude 21. 
Likewise in Acts xxii. 18 od trapadéfovtai cov thy pmaptuplay Tepl 
€“ov may be translated: they will not receive concerning me thy 
testimony, i.e. in reference to me no testimony from thee; 77v 


1 Harless on Eph. i. 15 and Mey. on Rom. iii. 25 ete., have taken the same view as 
the above. Fr. also, who in his letter to Tholuck, S. 35, had declared it a blunder to 
connect Sia ris micrews ev TH avTod atuatt, has stated (Rom. I. 195, 365) his altered 
opinion, and also in Rom. vi. 4 the combination 8:4 tod Bawticuaros eis Thy Odvator, 
which in p. 32 of his letter he had pronounced grammatically faulty, he has defended 
as alone admissible. 

18 


138 §20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 


paptuplay Thy rept éwod would be thy testimony to be given, or given, 
concerning me. In Eph. v. 26 & parte does not belong to To 
NouTp@ Tov VoaTos, but the passage is probably to be arranged thus: 
iva avtTiy ayiacn, Ka0apicas TO X.T. U5., Ev pnuatr. The xabapifew 
150 precedes the ayafew and denotes something negative, as the latter 
denotes something positive; see Riick. and Mey. In Heb. x. 10 it 
was not necessary to write dua Tis mpospopas Tod cmpatos ... THS 
edarra€ ; the latter word may just as well be referred to #yvacpévor; 
see Bleek. On Eph. i1. 15 and Col. ii. 14 see § 31, note 1, p. 220. 

In Eph. vi. 5 for rots kupiows ard. odpxa good Codd. have rots kata oapKa 
Kuptots, Which Lehm. has adopted. 

3. An appellative in apposition to a proper name, 

131 a. Usually has the Article, e.g. Acts xxv. 13 ’Aypimras 0 Bact 
ithed Neds, Luke ix. 19 Iwadvynv tov Bartiotyv, Acts xii. 1; xiii. 8; xxiii. 
24; xxvi. 9; 2 Cor. xi. 32; Matt. xxvii. 2, etc. In such a case 
the appellative always denotes a dignity, or the like, already known, 
and thus renders definite the proper name which may be common 
to many individuals. Agrippa the king, is properly that Agrippa 
who among those called Agrippa is king, etc. Cf. § 18,6, p. 112 sq. 

b. On the other hand, in Acts x. 32 Siu@v Bupceds Simon a 
tanner (a certain Simon who was a tanner), Luke ii. 86 “Avva 
mpopntis Anna a prophetess, viii. 3 "Iwavva, yuvn Xovla, éwutpomrov 
‘“Hpwéov, Acts xx. 4 Tdios AepBaios Gaius of Derbe (not the already 
known Derbeean), x. 22. In all these instances a predicate in 
apposition is simply annexed, without any precise intention of 
distinguishing the person from others of the same name. Likewise 
in Luke iii. 1 év éree wevtexavdexato Ths Hryewovias TiBepiov Katcapos 
must strictly be translated : of Tiberius as emperor. Gersd. p. 167 
is incorrect. In Acts vii. 10 évavtiov Papaw PBaciriéws AtyuTrrov 
does not mean: before Pharaoh, the (known or then) king of Egypt; 
but before Pharaoh king of Egypt, i.e. before Pharaoh who was 
king of Egypt. Cf. Plutarch. parallel. 15 Bpévvos Taxatav Ba- 
otrevs, C. 50 “Aterrouapos Tadrov Bacwreds, etc. 

With other words in apposition, also, the use or the omission of 
the Article is determined by the general rule; and it is strange 
that any one should assert, in absolute terms, that a word in ap- 

42¢ position never has the Article. Your father, an unlearned man, 

bth el would be expressed, to be sure, even in Greek without the Article ; 
but in the expression, your father, the jfield-marshal, the Article 
stands with entire propriety. Grammatically this applies to Jno. 

151 viii. 44. In general, the use of the Article may be regarded as 
more common than its omission (Rost 459). 


§ 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIV&S. 189 


The Article may be omitted, in accordance with the principles 
explained in § 19, even when the intention is to express a charac- 
teristic predicate distinctive of the particular individual ; as, Rom, 
i. T dro Oeod mratpos nyov, 1 Tim. i. 1 Kar émitayiy Ge0d cwrtipos 
nuav, 1 Pet. v. 8 0 avridixos buy SidBoros. So also if the appel- 
lative predicate precedes the proper name, as xvpios ‘Incovs Xpiotos 
2 Cor. 1.2; Gal. i. 3; Phil. iii. 20, etc.; although in the latter 
case the Article is used for the most part, as 1 Cor. xi. 23 0 KUpLOS 
Inoods, and 2 Tim. i. 10 tod cwrhpos jyav Xpiotod, Tit. ili. 45 
1 Thess. iii. 11; Philem. 5, etc. 

4, A limiting attributive joined to an anarthrous noun (appel- 
lative), properly dispenses with the Article ; as, Matt. vii. 11 dowata 
ayaa, Jno. ix. 1 etdev avOpwrov tuprov ex yeverhs, [Matt. ii. 1 
payou amo avatodoy oriental magi], 1 Tim. iv. 8 &@ 0 @eds Exticev 
els peTaAn wy peta evyapiotias, i. 5 ayamn x Kabapas Kapdias, Tit. 
i. 6 téxva Exo TriaTd, wi ev KaTnyopla acwrtias 7) avuToraxta, Rom. 
xiv. 17 dixavocvvn Kal eipyvn Kal yapa ev Trevpare ayio, cf. Plat. 


rep. 2,378 d.” Hpas 5¢ bec povs vireo viéos cal Hdaictov piwers {3 
p- 4, P ad P 


¢ \ , Ih a \ lA oy. # \ a) / Tih ed. 
UTO TATPOS, LEANOVTOS TH MYNTPL TUTTOMEVN awuvew, Kal Ceopayias, | 


dcas” Ounpos Terroinker, ov Tapadextéov els THY TOAW, Theophr. ch. 
29 ate O€ 1) KakoNoyia ayav Ths wWuyis eis TO yelpoy ev Aoyots, 
Aelian. anim. 11, 15 €oixa réEew eXéhavtos dpryiy eis yapmov adiKov- 
pevov.. Cf. Stallb. Plat. rep. 1. 91, 110, 152; Krii. 101. 

Not unfrequently, however, it happens that such attributives are 
joined to an anarthrous noun by means of the Article; and that 
not merely when the noun belongs to the class specified in § 19,1 
(1 Pet.i. 21), but also in other cases, though never without adequate 
ground; e.g. 1 Pet. i. T 70 doxipiov buav ths mlatews TONUTLMOTEPOV 
ypuaiov, Tov aroddupévov, Which is to be resolved: more precious 
than gold (that gold) which is perishable, Acts xxvi. 18 tictes 7H 
eis éwé by faith, namely, the faith in me, 2 Tim.i.13 év ayarn 7H 
év Xpiot@ ‘Incod, Tit. iii. 5 ovw €& Epywv, Trav év Sixavocvvyn, Rom. 
ii. 14 €0vn Ta pu) vopov Exovra gentiles that have not the law, see 
Fr. in 1. (compare 6n the other hand, 1 Thess. iv. 5); ix. 30; Gal. 
iii. 21 (compare here Liban. oratt. p. 201 b.), Heb. vi.7; Phil. iii. 9. 

In such passages, the noun is first presented to the mind as 


1S0 «Adémtns ev vuxrl might signify a nocturnal thief; but in 1 Thess. v. 2 with as 
KAenrns ev vuxti an &pxera is,to be supplied from the following clause : that the day of 
the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night (cometh). Even adverbs are joined without 
the article — that is to say, prefixed — to such anarthrous nouns, as wada ra be Xen. 
Hell. 5, 4, 14 @ severe winter. See Arii. in Juhn’s Jahrb. 1838, I. 57. 


15 


- 


140 ®*" g§21, THE PRONOUNS IN GENERAL. 


127 indefinite, and is then rendered definite by the attributive, whose 
ot import receives, by this very construction, special prominence. 
« ‘see further, Acts x. 41; xix. 11, 17); xxvi0225° Phil 
6; 1Tim. i. 43 i138; iv.8;3 2 Tim. 1) 243mie 10 Heo 
2Jno.7; Jude 4; Jas. 1.25; iv. 14; 1 Petevol. © Cf Hers 
és yiv tHv ojv, Xen. M. 2, 1, 32 avOparrois tots ayabots men, that 
is the good, Hiero 8, 8 wro yuvaikav tov éavtov, Mem. 1, 7, 5; 
4,5,11; Dion. H. IV. 2219, 4 evvoia 7H pos adrov, 2221, 5 omdicpos 
6 Tots THALKOUTOLS TpéT@V, Aelian. anim. 8, 23 ovdé éml Képder TO 
peylotm, 7,27; Her. 5,18; 6,104; Plato, rep. 8, 545a.; lege. 
8, 849b.; Demosth. Neaer. 517 b.; Theophr. ch. 15; Schneid. 
Isocr. Paneg. c. 24; Arrian. Ind. 84,1; Xen. Ephes. 2,5; 4, 3; 
Heliod. 7,2; 8,5; Strabo 7,302; Lucian. asin. 25,44; scyth.1; 
Philostr. Apoll. 7, 80; cf. Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 409; Herm. 
Lucian. conscr. hist. p. 106; Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 241; Schoem. 
Plutarch. Cleom. p. 226; Mdv. 8S. 14. 
In Phil. ii. 9 the text. rec. has dvoya Tro trép wav ovopa a name that is 


above every name. Yet good Codd. [Sin. also] have the Article before 
dvona: the name (which he now enjoys), which etc., the (known) dignity, 


which etc. 
URS} CHAPTER II. 
Tth ed. 
153 PRONOUNS. 


§ 21. THE PRONOUNS IN GENERAL. 


1. In the use of the Pronouns the language of the N. T. deviates 
from the earlier prose of the Greeks, or even from Greek usage 
in general, only in these two particulars: First, it multiplies the 
personal and demonstrative pronouns for the sake of greater 
perspicuity (or emphasis) § 22 sqq. Secondly, it neglects—more 
frequently than do the later Greeks even—many forms which 
ranked rather among the luxuries of the language, or were not 
felt by Orientals to be necessary (such as the correlatives dsres, 
O7r0c0S, O7TTol0s, mWnAtkos in indirect discourse); whereas those 
modes of expression by which the Greek aimed at conciseness 
(e.g. attraction), have become very frequent in the N.'T. writers 


1 This appears most plainly in sentences like Mark xy. 41 &AAa roAAal af cvvavaBaoa 


> n 2 tf 
avT@ cis ‘lepoodAupa. 


§ 21. THE PRONOUNS IN GENERAL. * 141 


§ 24. On the other hand it has been erroneously asserted that 
autos in the N. T. is equivalent to the unemphatic fe. Further, 
the Hebraistic distribution of ovdeis into od... was occurs almost 
exclusively in aphoristic propositions or set phrases. 

2. Itisa peculiarity common to the Pronouns, whether personal, 
demonstrative, or relative, that they not unfrequently take a dif 
ferent gender from that of the nouns to which they refer, regard 
being had to the meaning of the nouns, not to their grammatical sex 
(constructio ad sensum). This happens especially when an animate 
object is denoted by a neuter substantive or a feminine abstract ; 
the Pronoun is then made to agree grammatically with the sex of 
the object in question, either masc. or fem.; as, Matt. xxviii. 19 
pabntrevcate mavta ta €Ovn, Banrtivtovtes adtovs, Rev. xix. 15 
(cf. Exod. xxiii. 27; Deut. iv. 27; xviii. 14, etc.) Rom. ii.14; Acts 
xy. 17; xxvi. 17; Gal. iv. 19 rexvia pov, ods marw wbiva, 2 Jno. 1 
(similarly Kurip. Suppl. 12 eta yevvaiwy téxvwv, obs, Aristoph. 
Plut. 292), Jno. vi. 9 ote wawddpiov ev Mde, Os Eyer, as the majority 
of better Codd. have for the common reading 6, Mark v. 41 (Hsth. 
li. 9); Col. ii. 15 tas dpyas x. 7. éEovcias ... OpiawBedcas avTous, 
Col. ii. 19 tiv Keharynv (Xpicrov), €& ob Trav TO cHma, etc. (Jno. 
xv. 26 does not come under this head, as wvedwa is merely in 
apposition). For instances from Greek authors, see Mtth. 976 ; 
Wurm, Dinarch. 81sq.; Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. IL. 368; cf. Draken- 
borch, Liv. 29,12. There are variants in Rev. iii. 4; xiii. 14, ete. 

Under this head comes also Rey. xvii. 16 kal ra déka Képara & eldes Kal 
70 Onpiov, otToL puonoovor, where, agreeably to the symbolical language 
of prophecy, xépara and @npiov are to be understood as denoting persons. 


3. In the same way, these Pronouns when referring to a Singular 
noun are put in the Plural, if that noun has a collective signifi- 
cation, or is an abstract used for the conerete ; as, Matt. i. 21 tov 
Aaov ... avTo@y, xiv. 14; Phil. ii. 15 yevea, év ots, 3Jno.9 1) ExxrAnola 
...auTo@v, Eph. v. 12 oxdtos (écxoticpévot) UT avTov, Mark 
vi. 46f.... Tov dydov, Kal arotakduevos avtois, Jno. xv. 6, see 
Liicke in loc. ; Luke vi. 17, cf. § 22, 8 (but Acts xxii. 5 does not 
belong here) ; cf. Soph. Trach. 545; Thue. 6, 91; 1, 186; Plat. 
Tim. 24b. and Phaedr. 260a.; Xen. Oyr. 6, 8,4; Diod. S. 18, 6. 
This is very frequent in the Sept., Isa. Ixv. 1; Exod. xxxii. 11, 33; 
Deut. xxi. 8; 1 Sam. xiv. 34; ef. Judith ii. 3; iv.8; Ecclus. xvi.8; 
Wisd. v. 3, 7.1 In Phil. iii. 20 év odpavois, é€ 06, it was supposed 


1 In this way some expositors (e.g. Reiche) explain also Rom. vi. 21 tiva kapmby etxere 
tére ép ois (that is, kapmots) viv éracxiverde. See, however, § 23, 2, p. 158. 


128 
Gth ed. 


154 


134 
Tth ed. 


129 
6th ed. 


155 


142 * § 21. THE PRONOUNS IN GENERAL. 


that the opposite construction occurs, that is, a Sing. pronoun re- 
ferring to a Plural noun (Bhdy. 295); but é& od has become in 
usage nothing more than an adverb, exactly equivalent in sense to 
unde. On the other hand, in 2 Jno. 7 obr6s éotw 0 rrdvos, etc., 
appears a transition fromthe Plural 7) oporoyodytes, etc. to the 
collective Singular. 


Different from this is Acts xv. 386 kata macav wéAw év als, where raca 
mods of itself (exclusively of the inhabitants), implies a plurality (raca 
modes) cf. Poppo, Thuc. I. 92, and 2 Pet. iii. 1 ravryy ndyn devrépav tpiv 
ypddw érirtoAyv, év ats, etc., where dvo is implied in devrépay. I do not 
know of an exact parallel, but the opposite construction ravres Ostts, 
which occurs not unfrequently, may be compared with it (Rost 468). 

Note 1. According to some expositors (e.g. Kiihnél) the pronoun now 
and then refers to a noun not expressed till afterwards ; as, Matt. xvii. 18 
éretipnoey airo, namely 7@ daymoviw, Acts xii. 21 ednunydpe mpds atrots, ef. 
vs. 22 6 djpos (Fr. Conject. I. p. 18 sq.), see Gesen. Lg. S. 740; Bornem. 
Xen. conviv. p. 210. But neither of these two passages proves anything 
in respect to N. T. usage. In the former, air@ refers to the. demoniac 


himself, since in the Gospels, as is well known, the person possessed and 


the demon possessing him are often put for each other — (against which it 
is of no weight that Mark ix. 25 has éveriunoe TO rvevpati TO axabapTe) ; 
in the latter passage, atrovs refers to the Tyrians and Sidonians (deputies), 
mentioned in verse 20, as even Kiihnél has acknowledged; cf. Georgi, 
Vind. p. 208 sq. The verb dnpnyopety does not interfere with this, as the 
king’s statement was made in a full assembly of the people. 

Note 2. The Neut. of the interrogative pronoun ris, and of the demon- 
strative otros (airds), are often employed adverbially, to denote wherefore 
(why) therefore. The former is so used also in Latin and German: gud 
cunctaris ? was zdgerst du? and originally these pronouns were considered 
as real Accusatives (Hm. Vig. 882; Bhdy. 130). With regard to the 
strengthened demonstrative aid rodro compare 2 Pet.i.5 Kat adto TodTo 
orovdny Tacay Tapetseveykavtes (Xen. Anab. 1, 9, 21; Plat. Protag. 310 e. 
QuUTa TAavTAa Vor nkw apa oe), Mtth. 1041; Ast. Plat. legg. pp. 163, 169, 
214. Gal. ii. 10 does not belong here, see § 22, 4. As to 7/ sce passages 
according to their various relations in Wahl, clay. 483. The Greeks use 
also 6 and é for &’ 6 and 8¢ & (Mtth. 1062); but Mey. is wrong in trans- 
ferring to Acts xxvi.16 the more poetic use of @ (see § 39, note 1); 
whereas he himself on Gal. ii. 10 rejects on this very ground the proposal 
of Schott to take 6 for 6¢ 6! Likewise the distributive rodro pév ... todro 
dé partly ... partly Heb. x. 383 is used adverbially (Her. 1, 30; 38, 132; 
Lucian. Nigr. 16) ; cf. Wetsten. II. 423; Mtth. 740. (On 1 Cor. vi. 11 
Tadra TwWes ATE, Where two constructions are blended, see § 23, 5.) 

[ Note 3. Té is used not as an interrogative, but as an exclamatory des- 


§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 143 


ignation of degree, in Matt. vii. 14 té orevy how strait is the gate! Luke 
xii. 49 ri 02\w how would I (how much I wish!). This use is unknown 
to the classics, but is found in the Sept., e.g. 2 Sam. vi. 20, where the 
Hebrew 7 is rendered in this way. | 


§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 


1. The personal pronouns, in accordance with Hebrew circum- 
stantiality, are far more frequently employed in the Greek of the 
N. T. than in the classics! Particularly, 

Aitod, cod, etc., with substantives (especially in connection 156 
with the Middle Voice § 38, 2), as Jno. ii. 12; Luke vi. 20: vii. 50; 

- xi. 84; xxiv.50; Matt. vi. 17; xv. 2; Mark xii. 30; 1 Pet. iii. 11; 
Rom. ix. 17; xvi. 7; Acts xxv. 21, etc. (cf. 1 Macc. i. 6; Josh. 
Xxili. 2; xxiv. 1; Neh. ix. 34) ; 

The subject Acc. with the Inf., as Luke x. 35 éyw év 7o éravép- 130 
yeoOai we arodeéco, Jno. ii. 24; Heb. vil. 24; Acts i. 3; bth ed, 

Oblique cases with a participle and at the same time with the 
principal verb, as Mark x. 16 évayxaduodpevos avta Katevdoyer TEs 
Tas xelpas er avtd, ix. 28; Acts vii. 21; Luke xvi. 2; 2 Pet. iii. 16; 

(ef. below, no. 4.) So especially in the Apocalypse. On the other 
hand, in Matt. xxii. 37 and Rev. ix. 21 the repetition of the pronoun 
is probably to be charged to the account of the rhythm. 

In connection with this tendency to multiply pronouns, only a 
few passages occur where the pronoun is wanting when it might 
have been expected, e.g. Acts xill. 3 xai émiOévtes Tas yeipas avtois 136 
améxvoav (avtovs). Mark vi.5; Eph. v. 11; Phil. i. 6; 2 Thess. ith ed. 
iii. 12; Heb. iv. 15; xiii. 17; 1 Tim. vi. 2; Jno. x. 29; Luke xiv. 4 
(cf. Demosth. Conon. 728b. éuol mepurecovtes ... €&éducav).2 On 
the other hand, in Matt. xxi. 7 the better reading is érexaficer, 
and in 1 Cor. x. 9 wespaferww may be taken absolutely ; in 2 Tim. 

ii. 11 ody avt@ would be heavy in an aphoristic saying. In 1 Pet. 
ii. 11 duds, which appears in the MSS. now after tapaxadko now 
after améyecOa, is certainly not genuine. In acclamations, such 
as Matt. xxvil. 22 ctavpw677@, the omission of the pronoun is very 
natural (in German the Inf. would likewise be used without a 


1JIn the language of Homer, however, the possessive pronoun és is quite parallel. 
Later (and sometimes earlier) prose authors use also aitds thus abundanter. Schaef. ind. 
Aesop. p. 124; Schoem. ad Isaeum, p. 382. 

2 In Latin compare Sallust, Jug. 54, 1 universos in concione laudat atque agit gratias 
(iis), Cie. Orat. 1, 15 si modo erunt ad eum delata et tradita (ei), Liv. 1, 11 and 20. 
Cf. Kritz on the first passage. 


144 § 22, PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 


pronoun: kreuzigen!); yet the parallel passage Mark xv. 18 has 
otavpwoov avtov. (In Greek authors the omission of the Pro- 
noun is carried much further; see Jacobs, Anthol. pal. III. 294; 
Bremi, Lys. p. 50; Schaef. Demosth. IV. 78,157, 232; V. 556, 567.) 

In Eph. ili, 18 ri 76 wAdros, etc., the addition of adrijs (dyérns) would 
hardly help the passage ; see Mey. Many (e.g. Kiihnol) quite erroneously 
hold the pronoun to be redundant in Matt. xxi. 41 xaxods xaxas GaoAdoe 
antovs. Without avrovs the statement would be altogether general. 


Avrovs is required to connect it with the case in hand, — with the yewpyots 
spoken of. 


2. Instead of the personal pronouns the nouns themselves are 

sometimes employed : — either from the writer’s inadvertence, or 

157 with a view to relieve the reader’s uncertainty when more than 

one reference of the pronoun is possible, or because the noun 

stands at a great distance; as, Jno. iii. 23f.; x. 41; Luke iii. 19; 

Hph. iv. 12; cf. 1 Kings ix. 1; xii. 1 (Xen. Eph. 2,735 90 
6,105; D.S. exc. Vat. p. 29); Ellendt, Arrian. I. 55. 

But in Jno. iv. 1 ’Incods is repeated because the apostle wishes 

to quote the express words which the Pharisees had heard ; ef. 

1 Cor. xi. 23. Further, those passages in Christ’s discourses must 

not be referred to this head, in which, instead of the pronoun, the 

name of a person or of an office is repeated for the sake of emphasis; 

as, Mark ix. 41 év ovopate dte Xpiotov éore, Luke xii. 8 was os av 

omoroynon év uol... Kal 0 vids TOU avOpw@TroV OporoyoEL EV AUTO, 

Jno. vi. 40; 1 Cor. i. 8, 21; 1 Jno. v. 6; Col. ii. 11, andvoiten: 

Cf. Plat.” Euthyphr. p. 5e.; Aeschyl. Prom. vinct. 312; Cic. fam. 

2,4. In all these instances the pronoun would be out of place, 

131 and would mar the rhetorical effect. Least of all does the familiar 

Gthed. appellation 6 vids tod avOpeHrov, under which Jesus speaks of 

himself in the Synoptic Gospels as of a third person, stand for éyo. 

At other times the repetition of the noun is intended to denote 

an emphatic antithesis ; as, Jno. ix. 5 étav év TO Koop@ @, Has Eipe 

137 Tov Kdcpou, xii. 47 ovK FAOov Wa Kpivw TOV KOTMOY aA iva 

Ihel. cow tov Kdopov (Xen. An. 3, 2, 23 of Bacidéws axovtos év 

T Bactréws yopa... oixovor), Arrian. Al. 2, 18, 2; Kri. 114 

(Liv. 1, 10,1; 6, 2,9; 38, 56, 3). Accordingly, even in the fol- 

lowing passages:no one will regard the repetition of the noun as 

idle: Rom. v. 12 dv évds avOp@rov 4 adpaptia els Tov Kdcpov 

eisprOe, Kal Sia THS dpaptias oO Savatos, Jno. x. 29 6 ratiHp 

ov, os Oé0MKé pot, melGov TavTwY EoTL* Kat OvdEls SUVaTaL apmatew 

ex Ths yetpos TOD TaTpds mov. Cf. besides, Actsili.16. See § 65. 


§ 22, PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 145 


In Acts x. 7 the better Codd. have the personal pronoun (see Kiihnél 
in loc.) and 76 KopvyXtw is evidently a gloss. The passages which Bornem. 
Xen. Anab. p. 190 quotes from Greek authors are not all to the point, nor 
is the reading in all of them fully established. 

The assertion that it is epncnialhy characteristic of Mark to repeat the 
noun instead of the pronoun ards or éxetvos (Schulze in Keil’s Analect. 
II. II. 112) is not entirely correct. In Mark ii. 18 the nouns were indis- 
pensable, — (the writer could not put into the mouth of the inquirers an 
éexecvot referring to Ais, the historian’s, words) ; in vi. 41, and also in xiv. 67, 
the pronouns would have been quite unsuitable; in i. 27 the nouns were 
employed for the sake of antithesis ; in i. 384; ill. 24; v. 9; x. 46 we find 
circumstantiality (as often in Cesar), and not strictly the use of nouns for 
pronouns. Compare Ellendt, as above. 


3. The pronoun avtos! is frequently so employed, through the 
negligence of the writer, that in the propositions immediately pre- 
ceding there is no substantive expressed to which it can be directly 158 
referred. 

Such cases may be reduced to /fowr classes : | 

1) Adros in the Plur. very frequently refers to a collective noun, 

particularly the name of a place or country (cf. § 21, 3), which 
includes the idea of the inhabitants; as, Matt. iv. 23 é& traits cuva- 
ywyais avTay, that is Tadivaiwy (from 6rAnv tiv Tadvraiav), ix. 35 
(Luke iv. 15); Matt. xi. 1; 1 Thess. i. 9 cf. vs. 8; Acts viii. 5; 
xx. 2; 2 Cor. ii. 12,13 &\0ov eis THY Tpwada... dmoragdnevos 
avtots, Vv. 19 deos 7 te év Xpiarp KOGMOV KAaTAaANdTCwY EaVTO, [L1) 
Aoyilouevos aUTOLS Ta TapaTTopata, Jno. xvii. 2. This usage is 
common enough in Greek authors, cf. Thue. 1, 27, 136; Lucian. 
Tim. 9; dial. mort. 12,4; Dion. H. IV. 2117; Jacob, Lucian. 
Toxar, DP. Oo." 

Akin to this is, 2) the use of avros in reference to an abstract 132 
noun to be deduced from a preceding concrete, or vice versd ; as, bh ed. 
Jno. viii. 44 Yevorns éotl Kal 6 Tatip adtod (Wevdous), see Liicke 138 
in loc.,? Rom. il. 26 éav 7 aKpoBvaTie Ta SiKal@u“aTa TOD voj.ov ne 
purdcon, ovxXl 7) akpoBvatia avtod (of such an axpdBvaTos) eis 
mepitouny AoyiGOnoerat ; cf. Theodoret. I. 914 todT0 Tis arrocto- 


1 Compare, in general, Hm. diss. de pronom. avtés in the Acta Seminar. philol. Lips. 
Vol. I. 42 sqq. and his Opuse. I. 308 sqq. 

2 Simpler is the reference of airdés in the Plur. to an abstract signifying in itself 
nothing more than a community of individuals, as éxxAnota. On this see § 21,3. On 
Col. iv. 15 according to the reading airéy, see Mey. in loc. 

8 The other explanation: father of the liar, appears neither grammatically simpler 
nor preferable in meaning. Indeed, father of falsehood is a more comprehensive idea, 
and John has a predilection for abstract expressions. 

19 


146 § 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 


ALKAS yYapitos voy: attots yap (amooToAos) etc.t In Luke 
xxlil. 51 ad’réy refers to the Sanhedrim, implied in the predicate 
Bovareutns verse 50. Cf. Jonah i. 3 edpe mrotov Badifov eis Oapais 
... kal avéBn eis avTo TOD TAEDTAL eT AUTO@Y, etc., see above, 
No. 2. Sallust. Cat. 17, 7 simul confisum, si coniuratio valuisset, 
facile apud.: illos (that is, coniuratos) principem se fore. Similar 
to this passage from Luke would be Matt. viii. 4 (Mark i. 44; 
Luke v. 14) ets paptipuov avrots, if the pronoun referred to 
the foregoing ‘epe?, and thus avtots agreed with the Plur. tepedou 
understood ; but, if the cured man has already received from the 
priests permission to present the purification-offering prescribed 
by the law, the priests would need no further paptvpiov of his 
being cleansed. See 4) below. 

159 8) Adres sometimes refers to something implied in a preceding 
word, or even in the verb of the sentence ; as, 1 Pet. iii. 14 top dé 
hoPov avtav pr hoPyOjre, that is Tov KaxovyTMVY vmas, OY those 
from whom you must suffer (wacyew), see Hm. Vig. 714;2 Eph. 
v. 12 ta Kpudh) ywomeva tr adtov, that is Tv Ta Epya Tod cKOTOUS 
motovvtwy verse 11; Acts x. 10. Of. Aristoph. Plut. 566; Thue. 
1, 22, 1 and Poppo, in loc. ; Heinichen, ind. ad EKuseb. TL. O39. 
On Acts xii. 21 see § 21, note 1, p. 142. 

4) Avrés sometimes has no antecedent grammatically implied 
in what precedes, but must be referred to some subject assumed 
to be known; as, Luke i. 17 adros mpoedevoetat adrod (i.e. before 
the Messiah), see Kiihn6él in loc.— (avros of an individual recog- 
nized in a certain circle as head or leader, as in avtos épa; so of 
Christ, in 1 Jno. ii. 12; 2Jno. 6; 2 Pet. i. 4). In ciyieees 
els 70 iac@at avtovs, the pronoun expresses the general notion 
the sick, those who required healing (among the persons present 
in the synagogue); the pronoun cannot be referred to verse 15 
(though this is done even by Bengel). On the other hand, advrav 
in Acts iv. 5 refers to the Jews, among whom the events occurred 
(in verse 1, moreover, their priests et al. are mentioned; and 
several times Aads in the same verse and sequel has pointed to 

139 the Jews). In Matt. xii. 9 the pronoun refers to those (Galileans) 

Mhel. among whom Jesus was at the time; in Heb. iv. 8; vil. 8; 


1 With the relative compare Testam. patr. p. 608 dwexdAupa TH Xavavirid: Byoove, ots 
(Xavavatois) eimev 6 Oeds wh arokaddpa. Compare also the passage of an ancient poet 
in Cic. orat. 2, 46, 193: neque paternum adspectum es veritus, yuent (patrem) aetate 
exacta indigem Liberum lacerasti, and Gell. 2, 30, 6. 

2 Otherwise in Epiphan. II. 368 a. ed{ai wor, mdrep, Omws bytalyw: ... mioreve, TEKvOY, 
TP eoTavpwuevy, kal ets TavTHY (vyelay). 


§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 147 


xi. 28 it refers to the Israelites, suggested to the reader oh the 183 
antecedent particulars. The above-mentioned eis waptipuoy avrois ang 
Matt. viii. 4 comes under this head; those meant by avrois are 
the Jews (the public, the community among whom the precepts 

of Moses, 6 mposéra&e Maiorjs, are recognized). In Jno. xx. 15 
avtév presupposes that the inquirer knew who was meant, inas- 
much as it was thought he had taken him away; or Mary in 
answering, engrossed with the thought of the Lord, attributes to 
the inquirer her own impressions. Cf. besides, Poppo, Xen. Cyr. 
$,1,31; 5, 4,42; Thuc. IN. 1.184; Lehmann, Lucian. IT. 325; 
IV. 429; Stallb. Plat. rep. Il. 286, and, generally, van Hengel, 
annotat. p. 195 sqq. 


In Luke xviii. 34 airoé refers to rods dHdexa and aitrovs in verse 31 
(what intervenes being a statement of our Lord’s). So also in Heb. iv. 13 160 
airov relates to rod Geov in 12; and atrys in Luke xxi. 21 to ‘Iepoveadnp 
in 20. Lastly, in 2 Cor. vi. 17 &« peoou avrav, in a somewhat transformed 
quotation from the Old Test., refers to amuorou in verse 14; and in Rom. 
x. 18 airy suggests to every reader the preachers, who were also men- 
tioned concretely in 15. On Acts xxvii. 14, where some have referred 
airys to the ship, see Kiihnél in loc. In Luke ii. 22 airy points to mother 
and child (Mary and Jesus). Expositors are not agreed whether in Heb. 
xii. 17 airy refers to perdvoay or to evAoyiav; from the correlation be- 
tween ctpioxew and éxfyretv, however, the former reference is the more 
probable. In Matt. iii. 16 air@ and éx’ airdv relate unquestionably to Jesus. 

A slight inadvertence of another sort appears in Matt. xii. 15; xix. 2 
nKxodovOnaay aire dxAot toAXOL Kat eHepdrevtev adTovS mavras. Here the 
pronoun grammatically refers to oxAot, but logically this reference can be 
only a loose one: he healed them, that is the sick in the crowds, collectively 
(xiv. 14 eOeparevoe Tovds appdartovs airdv). Compare also Luke v. 17. 

According to some expositors the demonstrative also is, in a similar way, 
construed ad sensum in 2 Cor. v. 2. After év rovtw they supply coépart, 
as being implied in 7 ériyetos jydv oikia tod oxyvovs. But it is much 
simpler to supply oxyver, from verse 4. That the Greeks, however, did 
employ the demonstrative as well as airés with a want of precision in the 
reference is well known, cf. Mitzner, Antiph. p. 200. In fact, Acts x. 10 
would be an instance of this, if the reading éxeévwv for aivév were correct. 


4. A repetition of this pronoun (avrtés), and also of the other 
personal pronouns, occurs, 

a. When subjoined for the sake of perspicuity, in sentences 
where the principal noun is followed by a number of other words ; 
as, Mark v. 2 é€£e\@dvre avt@ ex Tod Trolov evOéws ATrHVTNTEV AUTO, 


ix. 28; Matt. iv. 16; v. 40; viii. 1; xxvi. 71; Acts vii. 21; Jas. 


148 § 22, PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 


iv. 17; Rev. vi.4; Col. ii 13 nal buds vexpods dvtas ev Tois japa- 
140 wropacw Kal Th dxpoBvotia Ths capKkos buoy ovvebworroincey Umas, 
Wel etc, Phil. i. 7. In the majority of these passages a participial con- 

struction, equivalent to an independent clause, precedes ; in this 

same case even the Greek authors often add the pronoun, Paus. 

8, 38,5; Herod. 3,10,6. Further, cf. Plat. Apol. 40 d.; symp. ec. 
134 21; Xen. C. 1, 8,15, and Oec. 10,4; Paus. 2,3,8; Arrian. Epict. 
fthal. 31; also Cic. Catil. 2,12, 27; Liv. 1,2; Sall. Catil. 40,1; Hm. 

Soph. Trach. p. 54; Schwarz, Comment. p. 217. The pronoun is 

used for the sake of emphasis in Jno. xviii. 11 to wotnpiov 6 dédwxKév 

pol 0 TAaTHpP, ov py Tiw avTO; Matt. vi. 4; 1 Pet. v. 10 (Actsii. 23); 

Rey. xxi. 6. (After a case absolute, the pronoun, in the case 
161 required by the verb, is introduced almost indispensably ; as, Rev. 

iii. 12 6 wex@v, moLnow avTov, Jno. xv. 2; Matt. xii. 36; Acts vii. 40, 

ef. Plat. Theaet. 175 d.; Ael. anim. 5, 84; 1, 48 a.) 

b. This redundancy occurs more frequently in relative clauses, 
as Mark vii. 25 yuvn, as eiye TO Ouyatpiov avTHs Tvedwa axabaptor, 

i. 7; Rev. vil. 2 ois €600n avtTots abixnoat thy ynv, etc., iil. 8 ; 

vil. 9; xiii. 8; xx. 8; similar to which is Mark xiii. 19 @rtprus, ota 

ov yéyove Tolattn am adpyhs Kticews. So also with a relative 

adverb, as Rev. xii. 6, 14 dzrov éyes Exet TO7op etc. 
In the Sept. Gin accordance with the Hebrew idiom, see Gesen. 

Lg. 748), such usage is far more frequent, as Exod. iv. 17; Ley. 

xi. 82,34; xii. 52; xv. 4, 9,17, 20, 24, 26; xvi. 9, 32; xu 

Num. xvii. 5; Deut. xi. 25; Josh. iii. 4; xxii. 19; Judg. xviii. 5, 6; 

Ruth i. 7; aii. 2,4; 1 Kings xi. 34;. xiii. 10, 25, 314 2a 

xix.4; Baruch ii. 4; iii. 8; Neh. viii. 12:; ix. 19; Isa. 1. 2i5 weet 

iii. 7; Ps. xxxix. 6; Judith v. 19; vi..103 =.:2;:x vie 

iii. 5; iv. 54; vi. 82, etc.; see Thiersch, de Pentat. alex. p. 126sq. 

Even in Greek prose, however, avtos (Gottling, Callim. p. 19 sq. ; 

Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 550), or a demonstrative, is sometimes super- 

added in a relative clause: Xen. C.1,4,19; D.S.1, 97; 17, 35; 

Paus. 2,4, 7; Soph. Philoct. 316 (cf. in Latin Cic. fam. 4, 3; 

Acad. 2, 25; Philipp. 2,8). Yet the demonstrative could very 

seldom be found so closely connected with the relative as in most 

of the preceding passages (which are almost all furnished by a 

style that has a Hebraistic tinge).1 See,further, Hm. Soph. Philoct. 

p. 58; Ve. Fritzsche, Quaest. Lucian. p. 109 sq. ’ 


In Acts iii. 23 the writer drops the relative structure in the second clause 


1In Aristoph. Av. 1238 the Cod. Rav. has ofs @utéov abrois for the rec. ofs Our. 
a’tovs. On another accumulation of the pronoun see below, § 23, 3. 


§ 22, PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 149 


(see just below). In Rom. vii. 21 the first €uot does not appear to me to 
belong to the same proposition as the second, see § 61,5. Different also are 
those passages in which with the pers. pron. still another word is joined by 
which the relative is epexegetically defined, as Gal. iii. 1 ois Kar’ 6fOadjiods 
"Inoots Xp. rpoeypady év tuiv (in animis vestris) éoravpwpevos (Ley. xv. 16; 

xxi. 20; xxii. 4; Ruth ii. 2); Rev. xvii. 9 rou 9 yuv7y Kabyrau ex airy, 

xiii: 12; cf. Gen. xxiv. 8, 37; Judg. vi. 10; Exod. xxxvi.1; Lev. xvi. 32; 141 
Judith ix. 2. Likewise in Gal. ii. 10 8 Kal éorovdaca aird roto roujoar Th eb 
the emphasis in the subjoined aird, strengthened by zotro, is evident 

~ (Bornem. Luc. p. LIV). We must not bring under this head 1 Pet. 

ii. 24 Os ras dpaptias jav adtos avyveyxey etc., where airos obviously 
stands by itself, and gives additional force to the antithesis with dap. 
npov. In Matt. iii. 12 ob 7d arvov ev TH xewt adrod, the relative serves 162 
instead of rovrov to connect what follows with the preceding clause, and 
both pronouns are to be taken separately, as if it read, he has H1s winnow- 

ing shovel in u1s hand. Eph. ii. 10 ots mponroiwacev is to be considered 135 
as an attraction for &@ zpont. Lastly, in Eph. ii. 21 év xvpiw belongs bth ed 
probably with eis vadv aytov. 

Sometimes airos is repeated in quick succession, though referring to 
different subjects: Mark viii. 22 dépovew aire (Xpior@) tupdov Kat tapaxa- 
Aovow avtov (Xpiotov), iva aitod (tupdAov) aWyrar, Mark ix. 27, 28. So 
ovros in Jno. xi. 87. See below, § 67. 

In a clause following a relative clause, and where ds or its continued 
influence might be expected, Greek authors frequently —indeed, almost 
uniformly (Bhdy. 304) —employ kai airds (otros), the writer modifying 
the construction, (Hm. Vig. 707; Ast. Plat. legg. p. 449; Boisson. Nic. 

p. 32; Bornem. Xenoph. conv. p. 196; Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 68; rep. 
I. 197; Foertsch, observ. in Lysiam, p. 67; Weber, Dem. 355; Teipel, 
Scriptores Graec., Germ., Lat. a relativa verbor. construct. saepe neque 
injuria semper discessisse. Coesfeld, 1841, 4to.; ef. Grotefend, lat. Gramm. 
§ 143, 5; Kritz, Sallust. If. 540). From the N.'T. may be quoted under 
this head, 2 Pet. ii. 3 ots ro kpiua exradar od« dpyel Kai  drddea adrOv od 
vuorate, Acts iii. 13; 1 Cor. viii. 6, with less appropriateness Rev. xvii. 2 
pel as eropvevoay ... kal eueOicOnoav éx Tod oivov THs Topvelas airas, where 
it was necessary to avoid the construction with the:relative on account of 
the nouns to be connected with the pronoun. In Hebrew, as is well 
known, owing to its great simplicity, the continuing of a sentence without 
the relative is very common; yet an idiom foreign to the genius of the 
language should not be introduced into the text by supplying “x with 
the following clause. (In passages such as Jno. i. 6; Acts x. 36; Luke 
ii. 36; xix. 2, to require the relative instead of adrds or otros, is to mis- 
apprehend the simplicity of N.T. diction; particularly as even Greek 
authors not unfrequently employ the same idiom; see Aelian 12, 18; 
Strabo 8, 871; Philostr. Soph. 1, 25; cf. Kypke I. 847. On the other 


150 § 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 


hand, in 1 Cor. vii. 15 for ris eye avdpa amurov kal abtdos cuvevdoKe 
etc. the expression 0s ovvevd. etc. might have been used.) 

In the N.T. 6 airds, the same, takes after it a Dat. of the person when 
it denotes the same (identical) with, as 1 Cor. xi. 5; cf. Her. 4,119; Xen. 
M. 1, 1,13; 2,1, 5; Cyr. 3,3, 35; 7, 1,25 Isocr. Paneg. ¢. 23; sb lag 
Menex. 244 b.; Dio. Ch. 382, 97. 

Note. Airds in the Nom., as is well known, never stands in classic Greek 
for the unemphatic he (Krii. 109,114). From the N. T. also! no decisive 

142 passages can be produced to prove this usage [which Bttm. Gramm. des 

ih el. neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 93 f. wrongly concedes] (cf. Fr. Mt. p. 47) ; even 

in Luke, who employs ards the most frequently (cf., in particular, Luke 

163 v. 16,17; xix. 2), it never occurs without a certain emphasis. It denotes, 

a. Self, in complex antitheses, and for all the three persons, as Mark 

136 il. 25 évetvacey aitds kat of per adrov, Acts xviii. 19 éxelvous karéAurev, abtos 

Gih ed, 6& eiseAOwv, etc., Luke v. 87; x. 1; xviii. 89; 1 Cor. iii. 15; Mark i. 8; 

Jno. iv. 2; vi. 6; ix. 21; Luke vi. 42 rds Sivacar Neyer .+. adTos THY év 

TO OfFarpud cod doxov od Bréxwv, Heb. xi. 11 rior cal adriy Sappa divapw 

eis KataPoAnv oéppatos eAaBev even Sara herself (who had been incredu- 

lous), Jno. xvi. 27 adros 6 tarp pidrct buds he himself, of himself (without 

entreaty on my part, verse 26), Rom. vill. 23. Adrds was thus used by 

the disciples in speaking of Christ (compare the well known ards: épa) : 

Mark iv. 88; Luke v.16; ix.51; xxiv. (15) 36. Cf. Fischer, ind. The- 
ophan. under airdés. See, in general, the Lexicons. 

b. Emphatic he, even he: Matt. i. 21 xadéoeus 7d ovopa adrod “Incotv: 
altos yap owe TOV daov, xii. 50; Col. i. 17. Aidrés is not used for the 
unemphatic he also in Luke i. 22 (he himself, as distinguished from the 
rest: éréyvwoav), ii. 28 (he Simeon, as distinguished from the parents of 
Jesus, verse 27), iv. 15; vii. 5 (he, of himself, from his own resources), 
Acts xiv. 12 (he Paul, as leader, verse 11), Mark vii. 86 ; [1 Thess. iii. 11 ; 
iv. 16; v.23; 2 Thess. ii. 16; iii. 16. ] (On the ay in Rom. viii. 23 
aiTol... év éavrows see Fr. in loc.) 


5. The reflexive pronoun éav7od, etc., which originally (as com- 
pounded of € and avros) belongs to the third person, and in the 
N.T. is regularly so employed (frequently in antithesis and with 
emphasis, 1 Cor. x. 29; xiv.4; Eph. v. 28, etc.), is also, when no 
ambiguity is to be apprehended, employed in reference to the first 
and second persons. It is used 

a. In the Plural,— as well for the first person, Rom. viii. 23 
(jets) avroi év éavtois ctevafopev, 1 Cor. xi. 51; 2 Cor. i. 9; x. 12; 
Acts xxiii. 14, etc.,as for the second, Jno. xii. 8 tovs 1twyovs TavTore 

1 According to Thiersch, de Pent. vers. Alex. p. 98, the LXX often use the masc. 


airds for he; but not avr or aird, instead of which the demonstrative is regularly em- 
ployed. In reference to the Apocrypha, Wadi, clavis p. 80, utterly denies such a use. 


§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 151 


yere pc” Eavtdv, Phil. ii. 12 tHv eavtav cwtnplav Katepydtecbe, 
Matt. iii. 9; xxiii. 81; Acts xiii. 46; Heb. ili. 13; x. 25, etc. 

b. In the Singular, though far less frequently (Bhdy. 272), in 
reference to the second person, as Jno. xviii. 34 ag’ éavtov cv TodTO 
Aéyers, Where ceavtod in Codd. B [Sin.] and others is undoubtedly 
a correction; in Rom. xiii. 9; Matt. xxii. 839 Sept. and Gal. v. 14 
ceavTov is preponderant. 

This same usage is found in Greek authors (under b. in particular 
ef. Xen. M. 1, 4,9; 0.1, 6,44; Aristot. Nicom. 2,9; 9,9; Aelian. 
1, 21; Arrian. Epict. 4, 3, 11), ‘see Locella, Xenoph. Eph. 164 ; 
Bremi, Aeschin. oratt. I. 66; Hm. Soph. Trach. 451; Boisson. 
Philostr. Her. p. 326; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 982; Held, Plut. Aem. 
Paul. p.130. Yet compare the assertion of an ancient grammarian, 
Apollonius, in Wolf and Bttm. Mus. antiq. stud. 1.360 and Eustath. 

ad Odyss. é. p. 240. (On éavrav ete. for dddjA@v see the Lexicons; 
ef. Déderlein, Synon. III. 270.) 


In the classic (Attic) writers avrot etc. is of frequent occurrence as a 
reflexive (Arndt, de pronom. reflex. ap. Graec. Neobrandenb. 1836, 4to.) ; 
in many passages, however, the Codd. vary between atrod and airov.' It 
is the more difficult to determine on ¢nternal grounds which of these in 
each particular case is the true reading, because in Greek a reflexive may 
occur at a considerable distance from the principal subject,? and because 
it often depended entirely on the writer whether he would use a reflexive 
or not; see Bttm. 10 exc. ad Demosth. Mid. p. 140 sqq.;*° F. Hermann, 
comm. crit. ad Plutarch. superst. p. 387 sq.; Benseler, Isocr. Areop. p. 220. 
Likewise in the N. T., in which since Griesbach atrod has often been 
adopted, cautious editors have frequently been at a loss in deciding whether 
airov or avrod should be preferred. Sometimes either would be appropriate. 
In Matt. iii. 16, for instance, cide ro rvedp0. ToD eod ... épydpevov ex adrov 
might be used from the narrator’s point of view; on the other hand, éd’ 
avrov would refer directly to the subject of the verb «ide, that is, Jesus 
(Krii.110). In the N.'T. it is, in general, unlikely that a reflexive should 
be used in reference to a remote subject, that is, one which is not in the 


1 In the later writers, as Aesop, the Scholiasts, etc. adrod seems to predominate ; see 
Schaef. ind. ad Aesop. p. 124. Cf. Thilo, Apoer. I. 163. 

2 Cf., however, //eld, Plut. Timol. p. 373. 

8 Bremi, in the Jahrb. der Philol. IX. 8. 171, says: ‘‘ On the use of adrod and adtod it 
is easy to lay down rules, but in certain cases the decision will always remain doubtful ; 
and it is far more difficult in Greek than in Latin to hit the mark,” ete. “ When the 
reference to the subject predominates in the mind, the reflexive is used ; but when the 
subject is viewed as a more remote object, the pronoun of the 3d person. In Greek one 
must yield rather to his individual impression, if you please, his mood at the moment.” 
Further, see some good remarks on reciprocal pronouns in general by Hofmann, in the 
Jahrb. d. Philol. VII. 8. 38 ff. 


143 
Tth ed. 
164 


137 
bth od 


152 § 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 


same proposition as the pronoun; this is owing to the simplicity of its 

narrative style, which, in like manner, disdains to adhere closely to the 

relative construction, see above p. 149. Accordingly, in Matt. in the 

passage referred to and in Eph. i. 17 airdév, airov, should be adopted with- 

out hesitation, but atrov in Acts xii. 11; Heb. v. 7; Rom. xiv. 14; see 

Fr. Exc. 5 ad Matt. p. 858 sqq. (where the view of Matthiae ad Eurip. 

Iphig. Aul. 800 and Gramm. I. 355 is examined) ; Poppo, Thuc. ILI. I. 

159 sq. On the other hand, it deserves attention, as remarked by Bengel, 

appar. ad Matt. i. 21, that in the Codd. of the N. T. the prepositions az, 

éri, umd, KaTd, etd, [dvrt] are never written dd’, éf’, etc. before avrov. 

Hence, with Bleek (Epist. to the Heb. IT. 69), it might be inferred that 

the N. T. writers never employed the reflexive form atzod, (but used, 

wherever necessary, éavrod instead of it). In fact, recent editors have 

printed the form atrod almost everywhere; as the uncial Codd. of the 

N. T. and of the Sept. that have diacritic marks recognize airod almost 

144 exclusively (Tdf. praef. N. T. p. 26 sq. [ed. vii. p. 58 sq.]). These Codd., 

Mthed. to be sure, are not of greater antiquity than the eighth century, and the 

165 expression “fere constanter” suggests the desirableness of a more accurate 

collation. Now it is true that in most passages a reflexive is not absolutely 

required ; yet it is difficult to believe that Paul in Rom. iii. 25 could 

have written «is Gdeéw THs Sukavocivys airod (in the face of év atware adrod), 

or Jno. in ix. 21 airés,zept airod ; compare also Eph. i. 9; Rom. xiy. 14; 

Luke xix. 15; xiii. 34; Mark viii. 35; Rev. xi.7; xiii. 2. Hence in the 

N. T. also, the choice between atrov and atrov must be left to the discreet 
judgment of editors. 

6. The personal pronouns éy@, ov, jets, etc. aré indispensable 

in the oblique cases, but in the Nom. they are regularly employed 

138 only when emphasis — and mostly in consequence of an, antithesis 

bthed. _ ig expressed or implied in them; as, Phil. iv. 11 éyo EuaGov év 

ois eiul adtapKns etvar, Jno. ii. 10 ras avOpwmos ... ov TeTHPNKAS 

etc., Rom. vii. 17; Luke xi. 19; Acts x. 15; Mark xiv. 29; Jno: 

Xvilil. 88 f.; Gal. ii. 9; Acts xi. 14 codon ov Kai 6 oikos cov, Jno. 

x. 80; Acts xv. 10; 1 Cor. vii. 12; Luke i. 18; Matt. vi. 12 ages 

Huy Ta operrnpata Huav ws Kal iets adjcapev ete., Jno. iv. 10 

av dv 7Tnaas avtov (while J asked of thee, verses 7,9), Mark vi. 37 

dote avtois wyeis dayetvy (ye, since they themselves have no pro- 

visions with them vs. 36), Jno. vi. 80; xxi. 22; Mark xiii. 9, 23; 

1 Cor. ii. 3f.; Matt. xvii. 19; 2 Tim. iv. 6: 

So when the person is described by a word in apposition, as 

Jno. iv. 9 ras ov "Iovdaios dv etc., Rom. xiv. 4 ov tls et 0 Kpiver 

addoTpwov oiKéTnv, Jno. X. 83; Acts i. 24; iv. 24; Lukei.76; Eph. 

iv. 1; or reference is made to some preceding description, as Jno. 

v. 44 (42, 43); Rom. ii. 3; or such description is assumed as 


? 


§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 153 


something known, as Jno.i. 80; Luke ix. 9 (J,—one who as king 
is certain of what has taken place); Eph. v. 32 (1 as apostle) ; 
Jno. ix. 24; Gal. vi. 17; 1 Cor. xi. 28. Suis used in addresses 
particularly when one out of many is meant, as Jno. i. 43; Jas. 
li. 8; or when the person addressed is made prominent by an 
attributive, as 2 Tim. ii. 1 ; Matt. xi. 28. 

These pronouns nowhere occur wholly without emphasis and 
where they might have been dispensed with (Bornem. Xen. Cony. 
187). For when in Eph. v. 32, for instance, we find éeyw de Aéyo 
eis Xpiotov, but in 1 Cor. i. 12; Rom. xv. 8 Aéyw dé,— in the 
first passage an emphasis is intended, in the other two, none. 
Moreover, the Codd. vary much with regard to the use or omission, 
as well as the position, of these pronouns; and each case must 
be decided, not according to any fancied peculiarity of style in 
the separate writers (Gersd. I. 472 f.), but according to the nature 
of the sentence. 


The personal profoun is both used and omitted in close succession in 
Luke x. 23, 24 of Bdérovres & Bdérere... ToANOL popAra ... HOEAnTaY 
ideiv, @ bets BXérere. Only the latter case, however, contains a real 
antithesis (tpeis opposed to zpod7jrat, BacA., etc.) ; in the first, the 666aa- 
foot BAerovres & BAerere are properly none other than those of which the 
BAemere is predicated. Compare 2 Cor. xi. 29 ris doOevel kal otk dcbevd ; 
ris oxavoadilera Kal odk €yw mupovyat; where it must be noticed that in 
the latter member zvpovpuac (which the apostle applies to himself) is a 
stronger word than oxavdadilecGar. In 1 Cor. xiii. 12 rote emtyvocopat 
Kaos Kai éreyvwoOnv, some authorities add éys to the latter verb; but 
incongruously, since the antithesis is expressed by the vox verbi. 

It may be remarked, in passing, that in some books of the Old Test. 
the emphatic "238 with a verb has been translated by the Sept. éya «ius, 
with which the first person of the verb is then connected; as, Judg. xi. 27 
SMNOM ND DIN} Kai voy eyo eiys ody jwaprov; cf. v.33 vi. 183 1 Kings ii. 2. 

On ards éyo (in Acts x. 26 kéya airs) see Fr. Rom. II. 75. 

7. The possessive pronouns are sometimes to be understood 
objectively ; as, Luke xxii. 19 1) éu% avayvnows memoria mei (1 Cor. 
xi. 24), Rom. xi. 31 7@ tperépw éréer, xv. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 81; xvi. 17 
(not in Jno. xv. 10). So also in Greek authors (especially the 
poets) ; as, Xen. Cyr. 3, 1, 28 evvoia cal piria 7H éuy, Thue. 1, 77 
To Nmetepov Séos, 6, 89; Plato, Gorg. 486 a.; Antiphon. 6, 41, ete. 
On the Latin cf. Kritz, Sallust. Cat. p. 248. 

Instead of a possessive pronoun (80s is occasionally employed in 
the N. T.—an impropriety similar to the use of proprius instead 


of suws or ejus in later Latin (and of ofketos by the Byzantine 
20 


166 


145 
Tth ed, 


139 
6th od, 


167 


146 
Tth ed. 


140 
6th ed. 


154 § 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 


writers, see e.g. Index to Agath., Petr. Patric., Priscus, Dexipp., 
Glycas, and Theophanes in the Bonn edit.),—as Matt. xxii. 5 
am ev eis TOY idvoy aypov, Without any emphasis (that is, without 
any antithesis to Kowds or addortpios), its parallel in the second 
member is él tiv éutropiay avtod; xxv. 14 éxddece tors idious 
Sovaous, Tit. ii. 9; Jno. i. 42. So of idvoe dvdpes, husbands, in Eph. 
Woo; Tit. i! 52) Petaiiaa, o.n eres avopes with or without 
a personal pronoun was sufficient; cf. 1 Cor. vii. 2.1 Yet on the 
whole this usage is but rare, and from Greek authors no appropriate 
instance can be produced; for all that has been quoted by Schwarz, 
Comment. p. 687, and Weiske, de pleon. p. 62, is unsatisfactory 
or at most but plausible; so also D.S. 5,40. Occasionally, vice 
versa, opérepos is found for duos ; see Wessel. Diod. 8. II. 9. On 
the other hand, the Fathers undoubtedly sometimes employ tézos 
for the personal pronoun, cf. Epiphan. Opp. Il. 622 a. 

In by far the greater number of passages in which tézcos is used, 
there is an antithesis either evident or concefled ; as, JNO: koe 
v.18; Matt. xxv.15; Acts 1.6; Rom. vili.32; xl. 245 5xiyeae 
1 Thess. ii.14; Heb. ix. 12; xiii. 12, also Matt.ix.1. The parallels 
in 1 Cor. vii. 2 &kaotos THY EavTod yuvaixa éyéTW, Kai ExdoTN TOV 
LOcov avopa éxéT@ mean: let each man have his wife, and let each 
woman have her own husband. Isocr. Demon. p. 18 cxo7e rpatov, 
Tas Urép TOV avTOD SubKnoEv* O yap KaKas SiavonOeEis UTEP TAV 
idiwv ete. Bohme, Kihnol, and others, improperly regard ‘ézos 
in Heb. vii. 27 also, as used for the simple possessive pronoun ; to 
idiac dpaptias there, at tod aod (as adXoTpiar) are expressly op- 
posed; cf. also iv. 10. When idos, as in Tit. i. 12 idios attap 
mpopytns (Wisd. xix. 12), is added to a personal pronoun, the 
pronoun merely expresses the idea of possession (their poet), 
and iéos makes the antithesis, their own (not a foreign) poet. 
Similarly in Aeschin. Ctesiph. 294¢.; Xen. Hell. 1,4,18; Plato, 
Menex. 247b. See Lob. Phryn. p. 441; Wurm, Dinarch. p. 70. 


Kara with the Acc. of a personal pronoun is considered as a circumlo- 
. . . > val / 
cution for the possessive pronoun, as Eph. i. 15 7 xa’ tpas riots your 
faith, Acts xvii. 28 of kof Spas roural, xviii. 15 vdpos 6 Kal? dpas, xxvi. 3, 
etc. This is in the main correct; it results, however, quite naturally from 
the signification of kata: 7 Kal’ ipas wiots is properly fides quae ad vos 


1 Mey. attributes to these passages an emphasis which is either quite out of place 
(Matt. xxv. 14), or which could have been fully expressed by the pronoun. Even this 
strengthening of the pronoun by Yé.os where there is no trace of an antithesis is foreign 
to the classics. 


§ 22, PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 155 


. pertinet, apud vos (in vobis) est; cf. Aelian. 2,12 % kar’ abrov dpery, Dion. 
H. I. 235 of xa’ yas xpovo. Cf. § 30, 8, note 5, p. 193. 

Note 1. The Genitive of the personal pronouns, especially pov and cot 
(more rarely ipav, yuo, airov), is, even when no particular emphasis is 
intended, very often’ put before the governing substantive (and its Article) ; 
Seiad. 2; vil. 24; viii. 8; xvi. 18; xvi. 15; xxii. 8; Mark v. 30; 
ix. 24; Rom. xiv.16; Phil. ii.2; iv. 14; Col. ii. 5; iv. 18; 1 Cor. viii. 12; 
Memes i. 16; ii. 10,13; 2 Thess. 1.17; 11.5; 1 Tim. iv.15; 2 Tim. 
fees Ehilem. 5; Luke vi. 47; xii.18; xv. 30; xvi. 63 xix. 35, etc. Jno. 
meeoe 111.19, 21, 33; iv. 47; ix. 11, 21, 26; xi. 32; xii. 40; xiii. 1, etc. 168 
Puno. iii. 20; Rev. iii. 1, 2, 8,15; x.9; xiv. 18; xviii. 5, ete. This 
takes place even in connection with a preposition ; as, Jno. xi. 32 érecev 
avtov €is Tovs Todas; yet in many such passages variants are noted. See, 
in general, Gersdorf as above, 456 ff. 

The Gen. of the pronoun is designedly put before the substantive, a. for 
emphasis, Eph. ii. 10 airot ydp éopev rotywa, more emphatic than éopey 
yap zm. avrov, Luke xii. 30; xxii. 53; b.*for the sake of contrast, 1 Cor. 
ix. 11 péya, ci qpets bpdv 7a capKixa Oepicoper, Phil. i. 20; c. when the 
Gen. belongs to éwo nouns,” Jno. xi. 48 Audv Kal tov Té7ov Kal TO vos, Acts 
xxi. 11; Luke xii. 35; Rey. ii. 19 ; 2 Cor. viii. 4; 2 Tim. 111.10; Tit.i. 15; 
1 Thess.i.3; 11.19 (D.S. 11,16). (The form énov depending on a noun, 
and placed after it, occurs only in such combinations as Rom. i. 12 ricrews 
tpav Te Kal €u0v, XVi. 13 pyrépa airod Kal éuov.) The insertion of a per- 
sonal pronoun between an article and a noun, as in 2 Cor. xii. 19 izeép ris 
tov oikodop7s, Xili. 9; i. 6, occurs on the whole but rarely. Cf. in general, 147 
Kriiger, Xen. Anab. 5, 6, 16. 7th ed. 

When the noun is preceded by an adjective, the Genitive of the per- 
sonal pronoun if placed before the noun is inserted between it and the 
adjective ; as, 2 Cor. v. 1  émiyetos yar oikia, 2 Cor. iv. 16 6 ew Fpov 
avOpwros. 

Note 2. The Dative of the personal pronouns in easy and familiar 
speech is sometimes in Greek and Hebrew (just as it is with us) appar- 
ently superfluous (dativus ethicus, Bttm. 120, 2, and Dem. Mid. p. 9; Jacob, 
Lucian. Toxar. p. 138). As instances of this usage from the N. T.— where 
certainly it might have been expected — are enumerated sometimes Matt. 
Xxi. 5,a quotation from the Old Test., sometimes Matt. xxi. 2; Rev. ii. 5, 
16; Heb. x. 34, But in the first of these last three passages, dydyeré pot 
means bring him to me, and dydyere alone would have been defective. In 
Rey. ii. <pxopat coe tax signifies 7 will come (punishing, cf. 14 iw Kara 


1°O marhp wou and 6 vids pov 6 dyamrnréds is the usual order even in the N. T.  Like- 
wise the Gen. of airds is regularly (see, however, Rost p. 459) put after the substantive. 

2 When this arrangement is not adopted, the pronoun must, for perspicuity, be re- 
peated, Acts iv. 28 80a # yelp cov Kad } BovaAh cov mpodpice, etc. Matt. xii. 47; from 
the Sept., Luke xviii. 20; Acts ii. 17. 


156 § 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 


gov éAtya, and 16 peravonoor) to thee, on thee (émi cé iii. 3) quickly In 


141 the third passage yew éavrots drapEw means repositam or destinatam sibi 
bthel. Labere, for themselves, as belonging to themselves. Even in Matt. xxi. 5 


169 


got is not without force. 

Note 3. Likewise 7 Yvyxy pov, cov, etc., is commonly regarded as a cir- 
cumlocution for the personal pronoun (Weiske, Pleon. p. 72 sq.), now in 
quotations from the Old Test., as Matt. xii. 18; Acts i. 27; Heb. x. 38, 
now in the N. ‘I. itself, and this use of the word is usually considered as a 
Hebraism (Gesen. Lg. S. 752 f.; Vorst, Hebr. p. 121 sq.; Riick. on Rom. 
xi. 1). In no passage of the N. T., however, does wy stand completely 
devoid of meaning, any more than tv 3 in Hebrew (see my edition of 
Simonis) ; it signifies the soul (the spiritual principle on which Christianity 
operates 1 Pet. i. 9) in such expressions as 2 Cor. xii. 15 éxdarvavnPycopen 
brep Tov Woxav tov, 1 Pet. 11. 25 éxtoxomos tov Woxav tyav, Heb. xi. 17, 
or the heart (the seat of the affections and desires), as in Rey. xviii. 14 


emupia ths Woxns cov, Matt. xxvi. 88 wepiAurds éorw 7 Yvyn pov, Acts 


ii. 43 éyevero taon Wyn PdBos.° Even in Rom. ii. 9 Yvyy is not a mere 
redundancy; it denotes that in man which feels the OAtkus and orevoywp., 
even should these come upon the body. In Rom. xiii. 1 aca Wyn eovetas 
tmepexovoas trotaccéaOw, the words zaca Wyn standing thus alone (cf. 
1 Pet. iii. 20) may mean every soul, i.e. every person; but even ine an 
enumeration of the inhabitants in any place, so many “souls” (Lat. capita) 
is not precisely the same as so many “men” (persons). Cf. also Acts 
iii. 23 Sept. And so the use of the word Wx contributes everywhere to 
vivacity or circumstantiality of discourse, which is totally different from 
pleonasm. Besides, yvxy is not unfrequently so used in Greek authors 
also (cf. Xen. Cyr. 5, 1, 27; Aelian. 1. 32), particularly the poets (Soph. 


148 Philoct. 714; Oed. Col. 499, 1207) ;* and this use must be deemed not 


Tth ed. 


a Hebraism, but a relic of antique vivacity of expression. See further 
Georgi, Vind. p. 274; Schwarz, ad Olear. p. 28 ; Comment. p. 1439.° 


1 See on the similar phrase few oo: Hm. Lucian. conscr. hist. p. 179 (e.g. Lucian. 
pisc. 16 iiw bmiv éxdicdoaoa Thy Sicnv). It is a sort of dativus incommodi, § 31, 4 b.; 
cf. 1 Kings xv. 20, LXX. 

2 In these passages it is easy to discern the notion of anima, and I do not know why 
Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 979, takes yvx7 here for a mere circumlocution. Likewise the 
passages from Plato which Ast, Lexic. Plat. IIL. 575, quotes, are deprived of their peculiar 
shade of meaning by the canon: orationem amplificat. 

8 Matt. vi. 25, where Wuxfh is opposed to s&ua, can present no difficulty to any one 
acquainted with the anthropological notions of the Jews. Likewise xapdia is not a mere 
circumlocution in Acts xiv. 17 €umemAdy tpopiis x. edppooivns Tas Kapdias budy, and 
Jas. v. 5 €OpéWare tas kapdias Suey, for otherwise it would have been possible to say, 
he smote his heart, for him, ete. Yet xapdia is probably used here not merely —as > 
is sometimes — in a material sense, agreeably to the physiological views of antiquity : 
to strengthen the heart, i.e. primarily the stomach, and through that the heart (even in 
Greek the signification stomach in kapdia has not altogether disappeared), but includes 
the idea of the pleasures of eating ; see Baumgarten on the latter passage. 


§ 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN. LOT 


§ 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN. 1492 
bth ed, 

1. The pronoun odtos sometimes refers, not to the noun locally 
nearest, but to one more remote, which, as the principal subject, 
was mentally the nearest, the most present to the writer’s thoughts 
(Schaef. Demosth. V. 822; Stallb. Plat. Phaedr. p. 28, 157; 
Foertsch, obs. in Lysiam p. 74); as, Acts iv. 11 obros CInaods 
Xpwctos verse 10, the nearest preceding noun being 6 Qeds) éaotw 6 
Aios, 1 Jno. v. 20 obtés eotw 6 adrnOwos Geos, tliat is, 0 Geos, not 
Xpictos (which immediately precedes) as the older theologians on 
doctrinal considerations maintained ; for in the first place, aAn@was 
eos is a constant and exclusive epithet of the Father; and secondly, 

a warning against idolatry follows, and adn@iwos eds is invariably 
contrasted with e/éwra. <A passage admitting of question is Acts 
vill. 26 attn éoTw Epnuos, Where some supply the nearest subject 170 
Tafa, and others od0s, see Kiihnol in loc. and my bibl. RWB. I. 
8. 395; I prefer the latter decidedly. The construction is more 
obvious in Acts vii. 19; 2 Jno. 7. (For examples from Greek 
prose, see Ast, Plat. Polit. 417; legg. p. 77.) On the other hand, 
exeivos in Acts ill. 13 must be referred to the nearest subject (Brem1, 
_ Lys. p. 154; Schoem. Plut. Agid. p. 73; Foertsch, as above; Kri. 
118). So also in Jno. vil. 45, where é€xetvoe denotes the members 
of the Sanhedrim (apysep. kai Papic.) grouped together (by the 
use of a single Article) as one body. For odtos and éxetvos so 
connected that the former refers to the more remote subject and 
the latter to the nearer, see Plut. vit. Dem. 3. (or éxeivos where 
only one subject is spoken of and odtos, or simply avtos, was to be 
expected, see 2 Cor. vill. 9; Tit. iii. 7.) 

In Phil. i. 18 kai év rovrw xaipw, the demonstrative points merely to the 149 
main thought Xpucros KarayyéAderor; and in 2 Pet. i. 4 da rovrwv refers ith ed. 
to éayyeApara. 

The Relative also is sometimes thought to refer thus to a more remote 
subject (cf. Bhdy. 297; Gdoller, Thue. II. 21; Siebelis, Pausan. III. 52 ; 
Schoem. Isae. p. 242sq.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I]. 369, and, in regard to 
Latin, Kritz, Sallust. I. 115) e.g. in 1 Cor. i. 8 (Pott, in loc.) where ds 
is referred to Oeds as the principal subject vs. 4, though “Ino. Xpuor. im- 
mediately precedes. This, however, is not necessary, either on account of 
Tov Kuplov Huav “Ino. Xp. at the end of the vs. (cf. Col. ii. 11; Eph. iv. 12), 
or of zicT0s 6 Geds immediately following; for what is here asserted of God, 
the calling «is kowwviav “Iycotd Xpw7od, is at the same time a calling to 
BeBavortcOa through Christ,,which can take place only in the fellowship 


158 § 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN. 


of Christ. To evade antiquarian difficulties this rule has been applicd | 
also to Heb. ix. 4 (see Kiihndl in 1.), and on doctrinal grounds to éf’ in 
Rom. y. 12, but in both cases very erroneously. In Heb. v. 7, and 2 Thess. 
ii. 9 there is no difficulty. In 2 Pet. iii. 12 60 qv can very well be referred 


148 to the nearest noun 7pépas, and @ in 1 Pet. iv. 11 to the principal subject 


6th ed, 


171 


150 
Tth ed. 


6eds. On Heb. iii. 6 ob otkos modern expositors are correct. 


2. A demonstrative pronoun preceding a relative clause, if it 
has no special emphasis, is usually included in the relative pronoun 
(Kru. 124 f.). This occurs not only 

a. When, if expressed, it would regularly or by attraction stand 
in the same case with the relative, as a) Acts i. 24 davaderEov ov 
é&eneEw for tovTov dv, Rom. vill. 29; Jno. xviii. 26 cuyyevs av ob 
atréxowev Ilétpos to wtiov, 1 Cor. vii. 89; 2 Cor. xi. 12; Phil. iv.11; 
B) Acts vill. 24 dmrws pndev érrédXOn Err’ ewe wv eipncate for TovT@Y a 
eto. XXi. 19; xxii. 15; xxvi. 16, 22; Luke ix. 36; Rom. xv. 18; 
Kph. iii. 20; 2 Cor. xii. 17; ef. Isa. ii. 8; Wisd. xii. 14; Tob.i.8; 
xii. 2,6. Plato, Gorg. 457 e.; Phaed. 94c.; Isocr. Phil. p. 226, 
and de pace 388; Plut. virt. mul. p. 202; an. we 1,9, 25; Dem. ep. 
5 in. and Olyn. I. p. 2a.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 868. But also, 

b. When the demonstrative would require a different case, as 
Jno. xiii. 29 ayopacov av ypelav Eyouev (TadTa my), Rom. vi. 16 ; 
Matt. xix. 11; Acts viii. 19; xiii. 37; 1 Cor. xv. 86; 2 Petsing: 
cf. Xen. C. 6, 2, 1 amnyyerras ov édéov, Hurip. Med. 735 éupéverv 
& cov KAvw i.e. TovTos a, see Elmsley in loc.; Lysias p. 152 Steph. 
fn) KaTayvyvecKkeTe adikiay ToD... SaTav@vTos AAN boot... ElOe- 
opévot eiaiv avarioxew for tovtwv dcot, see Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 189; 
cf. Kritz, Sallust. II. 301. And in this instance even the prep- 
osition on which the case of the demonstrative depends is also 
omitted ; as, Rom. x. 14 was mictevcovow ov ovK iKOVEGY 1.0. Ets 
Toutov ov, etc.} 

If, when the demonstrative before the relative is omitted, a 
preposition precedes, the preposition belongs logically either, 

a) To the relative clause; as, Rom. x. 14 1é@s émixadecovtat eis 
Ov ovK érriaTevoay, Vi. 21 Tiva Kaprov elyeTe TOTE (VIZ. TOUTwWY) ép 
ois viv émaicyvvecbe,? xiv. 21; Jno. xix. 87 (Sept.) ; Luke v. 25; 


1 Similar to this would be 1 Tim. ii. 10 aaa’ 3 mpémer yuvautly erayyeAAouevais beoae- 
A 


Beay, if we unite with Matthies in resolving aad’ 8 into GAN’ év TovTw d mp. But it is 
simpler and easier to explain the passage by joining 8? %pywv with kocpeiy verse 9. 
Had Paul intended to spray the former REARING he would pare expressed himself 
distinctly by writing év 6 mpéme: etc. 

2 Reiche has obviously stated more than the truth in. asserting that in all other in- 


stances the only demonstrative omitted, is one governed by a verb, and never one gov- 


§ 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN. 159 


2 Pet. ii. 12 ;1 Soph. Phil. 957 ; Aristot. rhet. 2, 1,7; Isocr. Demon. 
pe2eeOr, 

b) To the demonstrative understood ; as, Jno. vi. 29 wa uorev- 
ante eis bv améaotetnen éxeivos, xvii. 9; Rom. xiv. 22; 2 Cor. v. 10; 

xii. 6; Gal. i. 8f.; Heb. v. 8 (Num. vi. 21). Also Heb. ii. 18 ev 144 
© Térov0ey adtos treipacbels, Suvatas Tois meipafopevors Bonfijcat bth ef. 
might be resolved thus: év TovtT@ 0 trérrovOev ... dvvatau ... Bon- 172 
Ojoat. Of. Xen. M. 2, 6, 34 eyyiyvetat evvora Trpos ods av UTOAGBw 
evoikas eyew mpos éué, Anab. 1, 9, 25; Hell. 4, 8, 383; Demosth. 
Con. p. 729 a.; Olynth. I. p. 2; ep. 4p. 118b.; Plato, rep. 2, 875 d.; 
and Phaed. 61¢.; Arrian. Alex. 6, 4,3; Diog. L. 9, 67; 6,74. Or, 

c) To both clauses; as, 2 Cor. ii. 3 iva pry) AUTHV Exo ad’ wv ede 
pe xaipewv, 1 Cor. vii. 39; x.30; Jno. xi.6; Rom. xvi. 2 (cf. Isoer. 
Byag. p. 470 maAelous ev tovtous tots tomo SvatpiBetv, 7) Tap’ ols 
mpotepov eiwOores oav. Cic. Agrar. 2,27). Also 1 Cor. vii. 1, and 
Phil. iv. 11 may be so construed. 

Relative Adverbs, in like manner, often include definite ; as, 
Jno. xi. 32 HAOev Orrov Hv 6 ‘Inaods (i.e. éxetoe Orov), Vi. 62; 
Mark v. 40 eistropeverat Otrov Hw 7O Twadiov (cf. Bttm. Philoct. p. 
107), 1 Cor. xvi. 6; Matt. xxv. 24 cuvaywor o0ev ov dvecxdpricas 
for éxe?Oev drrov, cf. Thuc. 1,89. Still more free is the construction 
in Jno. xx. 19 tay Oupov KexNecpévwv Otro Hoav oi waOyrai etc. 

It has already been mentioned, that in such condensed sentences 
(where a Greek would not properly supply a demonstrative, Krii. 
124) a comma should not be inserted before the relative. In Jno. 

vi. 29 a comma would be absurd. 

3. In emphatic passages the demonstrative is repeated in con- 
nected clauses several times in succession ; as, Acts vii. 835 TodTov 
Tov Mwionv...todtov o Beds arréotarkev ... o0TOS eEnyayov... 
ovtos é€otw 6 Mwions 6 cimas ... 00T0s éotlv 6 yevomevos év TH 
éxxdnolia etc.; and, in a different spirit, Jno. vi. 42 ody ‘otros 
éotw “Incods 6 vidos ‘Iwonp... mds odv eyes odTOS etc. See 
Bornem. bibl. Stud. der siichs. Geistl. I. 66 f., who, among other 151 
passages, quotes as parallel Xen. M. 4, 2, 28 wai of te amoruyyd- Th et 
VOYTES TOV TpaypaTwv éemiovpovat TOUT OUS UTEp avTaV BovrEveoVat, 
kai TpoictacOai te éavTdy TOUTOUS, Kal Tas €ATriOas TOV ayabarv 
erned by a noun; cf. Jno. xviii. 26; Luke xxiii.41. Besides, were the assertion correct, 
it would prove nothing against the above explanation, see #’r. Moreover, é¢” ofs might 
perhaps also be taken in the sense discussed by Weber, Demosth. p. 492. 

1 Ayvoety év Porphyr. abst. 2,53. Some also refer to this head Rom. vii. 6, supplying 


éxelvm (vou) before év &; but évy @ refers back to ard Tod vduov, and amoday. is annexed 
absolutely to denote the modus of xatnpy. See Philippi. 


178 


145 


6th ed. 


160 § 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN. 


€v TOUT OLS eyouct Kal dia TaVTA TadTAa TaVTOY pddicTa TOUTOUS 
ayaroow. From Latin cf. Cic. Verr. 3, 9,23 hunc in omnibus 
stupris, hwnc in fenorum expilationibus, hune in impuris conviviis 
principem adhibebat (Verres). This Anaphora occurs with a 
relative adjective in Phil. iv. 8 éca éotly adnOh, ca cepva, boa 
dikaia, Ooa aya, daa Tposdirh, Goa evdnua; cf., further, § 65. 

4. It is far more common to repeat odros or éxetivos in the same 
clause after the subject, or the predicate if it precedes; the pro- 
noun is inserted immediately before (more rarely after) the verb. 
This occurs when the subject (or predicate) consists of several 
words and is to be made more perspicuous or emphatic ; as, Matt. 
XXIV. 13 6 brropeivas eis TéXOS, OUTOS GWONceTAL, JNO. i. 18 6 povoyevns 
ulos 0 @v els TOV KONTTOV TOD TaTpOS, éxelvos éEnyjaato, Mark vii. 15 
Ta EKTrOpevomevaaT avTod, éexelva éoTt TA KOLWOdVTA TOV avOpwTO), Vii. 
20; xii. 40; 1 Cor. vi. 4 rods éEovPevnpévous év TH exxAnoia TobTOUS 
Kabivere, Rom. vii. 10, 15 f. 19f.; ix. 6,8; xiv. 14; Jno. v. 11; 
xil. 48; Phil. i. 22 etc.; cf. Thuc. 4,69 (Xen. conv. 8, 33; Ages. 
4,4); Plato, Protag. p. 839d.; Isocr. Evag. c. 23; Paus. 1, 24, 5; 
Lucian. fug. 3; Ael. 12,19, etc. See Schaef. Melet. p. 84; Jacob, 
Lucian. Toxar. p. 78, 144, and Lucian. Alex. p. 7; Siebelis, Pausan. 
I. 63; Weber, Demosth. 158. As to Latin see Kritz, Sallust. I. 171. 
(The further strengthening of such emphasis by 6é —Bttm. Demosth. 
Mid. p. 152; Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 252—does not occur 
in the N. T. Neither do the sacred writers exhibit any trace of 
that consequent anacoluthon which is not infrequent in the classics 
— Schwarz, de discipulor. Chr. soloecism. p. 77 —; unless one 
choose to refer the attraction in 1 Pet. ii. 7 to this head.) 

Still more frequently are these pronouns thus used after a 
protasis beginning with a conjunction or a relative ; as, Jno. ix. 31 
éav tis OcoceBis 7 Kal Td OéAnua TOD OEod ToVH, TOUTOV aKovEL, 


Jas. i.'23 ; Matt. v. 193 x11. 50; Phil iti. 7; 1v095; 2 Times 


The repetition of the demonstrative pronoun in Luke xix. 2 cat airos 
WV apxitehovns Kat odtos Hv wAovatos, is deserving of attention. The 
meaning is: he was a chief publican and besides (as such) was rich, esque 
dives fuit (Mtth. 1040) ; Lchm. has adopted from B the reading xat ards 
(jv) wAX., which has less to recommend it. Cf, also, Xen. Cyr. 8, 3, 48. 

The case is different when, for the sake of perspicuity, in a lengthened 
sentence, a preceding substantive is again brought under the notice of the 
reader by means of a pronoun ; as, 2 Cor. xii. 2 oida avOpwrov é&v Xpiot@ 


\ oA , ” > , € ion \ a 
° Tpo ETWV dexaTecoapuv .. . €LTE EV OWMATL » . APTAVEVTa TOV TOLOUTOV. 


152 etc. (Plato, rep. 3, 898; Xen. C. 1, 3, 15) 1 Cor. v. 3,5; Acts i. 21f. 


7th ed, 


cf, § 22, 4, p. 147. 


/ 


§ 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN. 161 


5. A demonstrative pronoun is often placed before 671, iva, and 
similar particles, to give special prominence to the clause that 
follows (particularly in Paul and John) ; as, 1 Tim. i. 9 ecdws tod70, 
éte etc. Acts xxiv. 14 duoroy® TodTo co, dts etc. Rom. vi. 631 
omer: xv. 00; 2 Cor.v.15; x. 7,11; 2 Thess. iii. 10; Phil. 174 
eee. P00. Xvi. 3; 2 Pet.i. 20; 1 Jno.i. 5; iii. 11, 23 ;.1v. 9, 10; 
y. 3, 11,14; 2 Jno. 6; cf. Plato, Soph. 234b. So ets tovro before 
iva Acts ix. 21; Rom. xiv. 9; 2 Cor. ii. 9; Eph. vi. 22; 1 Pet. iii. 9; 
1 Jno. ili. 8, €v tovTm dru 1 Jno. iv. 18, é€v TtovTw twa Jno. xv. 8; 
1Jno. iv. 17 (see Liicke in loc.), év rovr@ édv 1 Jno. ii. 3, év TovTH 
-érav 1 Jno. v. 2; cf. Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. Il. 461; Franke, 
Demosth. p. 40. 

Likewise when an Infinitive (Mtth. Eurip. Phoen. 520; Sprachl. 
1046) or a noun follows as predicate, a demonstrative is employed 
for emphasis; as, 2 Cor. ii. 1 éxpwa euwavT@ ToDTO, TO pr) TadW 
év AUTH Tpos wuds éAOetv, Vii. 11 avdTO ToUTO TO Kata OBedr 
AvrnOjva, 1 Cor. vii. 87; Eph. iv. 17; Jas. i. 27 (cf. Xen. Hell. 
4,1, 2, and Ages. 1,8; Plat. Hipp. mai. 802 a.; Gorg. 491d. ; Isoer. 
Kvag. c. 3; Porphyr. abstin. 1,13; Dion. H. VI. 667, and de Thue. 
40, 3; Epict. enchir. 31,1 and 4; Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 261) ; 
2 Cor. xili. 9 TovTO Kai evyomat, THY Kav KaTaptiow, 1 Jno. ill. 24 ; 146 
_v. 4 (ef. Achill. Tat. 7,2 dapyaxov att@ Tovto Tis ... NUTS 1) TpOs 6th 
adxrov eis TO TraGeiy Kowwvia, Plat. rep. 3, 407 a.; Lucian. navig. 3 ; 
Kurip. suppl. 510; ef. Jacob, Lucian. Toxar. p. 136; Ast, Plat. 
Polit. p. 466). 

Even ets tovro is so used, as Acts xxvi. 16 eis TodTo yap wpOnv 
got Tpoyelpicacbat oe brnpéTHy Kai pdptupa etc., and ovTws 1 Pet. 
li. 15 (1 Cor. iv. 1), and évredbev Jas. iv. 1. 

Lastly, a demonstrative is thus prefixed to a participial construc- 
tion; as, Mark xii. 24 od 81a TodtTo mrAavacOe, 7) E’ddTES TAS ypahas 
etc., for this cause ... because ye know not etc.; cf. Antiphon 6, 
46 ove areypadovto TovTov avtod évexa, ovyx Hryovpevol we ATrOKTELVAL 
ete., see Maetzner, Antiph. p. 219; Schoem. Isaeus p. 370. 


The use of the demonstrative pronoun in such expressions as Acts i. 5 
ov pera roAAds Tatras yuépas after (in) a few days, is easily explained. 
It does not depehd, as Kiihnél thinks, on a transposition of zroAvs, but is 
to be explained like the Latin ante hos quinque dies, etc.; cf. in Greek as 
édlyov 7pd TovTwv tHpepov (Achill. Tat. 7,14), od po toAAGv THV€ HyepSv 
(Heliod. 2, 22, 97). Abrac hugpar are, these very days just past ; and ante 
hos quinque dies strictly means: before these (reckoning from the present 


1 In Rom. ii. 3 an amplified Voc. intervenes between rodro and the clause with 6rt. 
21 


162 § 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN. 


time) last past five days. The demonstrative, therefore, connects the 

1538 period specified with the present. Expositors and lexicographers are 

ith el able to explain the force of the demonstrative in Jas. iv. 18 zopevodpeba eis 
Tyvde THY TOAW into such and such.a city, only by a reference to the well- 
known 6 detva; but dd¢ is also used by the Greeks in exactly the same 
way, e.g. Plutarch. Symp. 1, 6, 1 ryvde tiv iypepay such and such a day. 
[The full and ordinary demonstrative signification, however, is claimed, 
both for the passage in James and for that in Plutarch, by Bttm. Gramm. 
des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 90; and Huther on James, 2nd. ed., agrees with 
him. | 

175 The Plur. ratra is not unfrequently in Greek employed in reference to 
a single object, and stands therefore, strictly taken, for totro (Plat. Apol. © 
19d.; Phaedr. 70 d.; Xen. Cyr. 5, 8,19; see Schaef. Dion. p. 80; cf. also 
Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 524; Stallb. Plat. Apol. p. 19 d.; Maetzner, Antiphon 
p- 153).' Instances of this in the N. T. are 3 Jno. 4 (where several Codd. 
give the correction tavrys) see Liicke, and also Jno. i.51; but undoubt- 
edly not Jno. xix. 36, see van Hengel, annotat. p. 85 sq.; in Luke xii. 4 
the adverbial phrase pera tatra means afterwards. Nearly the same is to 
be said of the well-known kat tatra, idque, Heb. xi. 12. On 1 Cor. ix. 15 
see Mey.” In 1 Cor. vi. 11 zatra may have a contemptuous secondary 
signification: kal tatra twes Hre, and such a set, talis farinae homines 
(Bhdy. 281; Stallb. Plat. Rival. p. 274) ; yet perhaps this was far from 
the apostle’s thought, and ratra is frequently used in reference to a series 
of predicates: of such a description, ex hoc genere fuistis; Kypke and 
Pott in loc. have blended things quite dissimilar. 

147 In 1 Jno. v. 20 Liicke thinks he finds a prozeugma of the demonstrative 

bth ed. pronoun (cf. also Stud. und Kritik. IT. S. 147 ff.) : obrés éorw 6 dAnOwos 
eds, Kal (atrn) wi aiwvios,—not impossible, but in my opinion un- 
necessary. 

Note. Respecting the position of otros and éxetvos, it must be remarked 
that the former, from the nature of the case, usually stands before, and the 
latter after, the substantive ; as, otros 6 avOpwros, 6 avOpwros éxetvos. Yet 
the opposite order also occurs in the case of otros (Matt. xxviii. 15 6 ddyos 
ovtos, Luke i. 29 etc.) without essential difference of meaning, with éketvos 
(Luke xii. 47; Heb. iv. 11) particularly in the connecting phrases év éxetvats 
TALS Hpepats, ev exelvy TH Huepa or wpa, ev exe(vw TO Kaipo (Gersdorf 433). 
It must not, however, be imagined that a writer has so committed himself to 
the one arrangement, that the other should be altered when it is confirmed 
by approved Codd. or by the sense. 


1 Fritzsche, quaestion. Lucian. p. 126, qualifies this remark as follows: Plur. poni de 
una re tantummodo sic, si neque ulla emergat ambiguitas et aut universe, non definite 
quis loquatur, aut una res plurium vi sit praedita. 

2 In the same way é¢’ ois and av@ ay are used in Greek, where the Sing. would suffice. 
Fr. Rom. I. 299. 


§ 24, THE RELATIVE PRONOUN. 163 


§ 24, THE RELATIVE PRONOUN. 


1. In accordance with the law of attraction (cf. Hm. Vig. 891 
sqq.; Bhdy. 299 ff.),! the relative pronoun és (never in the N. T. 
éstes),” Which by reason of the governing verb should stand in the 
Accusative, is so drawn by the oblique case (Gen. or Dative) of the 
preceding noun with which it has a logical connection (that of a 
subordinate with a principal clause), as to pass over into this 
oblique case. ‘This peculiar construction, which gives a sentence 
more internal unity and a certain periodic compactness, was fre- 
quent even in the Sept., and in the N. T. it regularly occurs 
(though not everywhere without var.) ; as, Luke ii. 20 émt racw 
ots nKovoar, Jno. ii. 22 (iv. 50) érictevoay TO Oyo @ eivrev, Acts 
faeeeno s vii. 17; x. 39; xvi. 31; xx. 38; xxii.10; Jas. ii. 5; 
1 Pet.iv.11; Jno. vii. 31,39; xv. 20; xvii.5; Mark vii. 18; 
meee. 2 y XIX. Oo. . Matt. xvii. 19; 1 Cor. vi. 19; 2 Cor. x.13; 
meee, 2 Lhess.i1.4; Tit. iii.6; Heb. vi. 10 (ix. 20) ; x.1; Eph. 
i. 8; 11.10; Rev. xviii. 6, etc. (in all which cases the comma in 
the text before the relative is to be rejected, see § 7,1). Jude id 
Téepl TavTwV TOV épywv aceBelas avTaY av noéBnoay deserves par- 
- ticular attention, see § 82, 1, p. 222. 

There are, however, passages in which this construction is 
neglected ; as, Heb. viii. 2 tis cxnvis tis adnOwis, Hw emnkev 6 
Kvpwos, and, according to good Codd., Mark xiii. 9; Jno. vil. 39; 
iv. 50; Tit. iii. 5. Besides, compare the var. in Jno. xvii. 11; 
Heb. vi. 10; Acts vii. 16; Rev. i. 20. So frequently in the Sept. 
and the Apocrypha (Wahl, clav. p. 860), likewise in Greek authors ; 
see Bornem. Xen. Anab. p. 30; Weber, Dem. 543; Kri. 121. 


Eph. i. 6 ris xdpiros Hs éxapirwcey (var. é&v H), iv. 1 rhs KAjoews is 
éexAnOyre, 2 Cor. i. 4 dus THs TapaxAjoews Hs Tapaxadovpeba,® where 7s seems 
to stand for 7, appear to transcend the above rule. But these passages 
may be accounted for by the well-known expressions KAjow Kadety, rapd- 
kXyow wapaKxadeiv, xdpw xapirotv, ayarnv ayarav (§ 32,2), and by the 
equally well-known construction of the Passive; see Gieseler in Rosenm. 


1 Cf. also the thorough treatise of G. T. A. Kriiger (relating more directly to Latin) 
in his Untersuch. a, d. Gebiete der lat. Sprachlehre. 3 Hefte. Braunschw. 1827, 8vo. ; K. 
W. Krtger, in his Sprachl. 121, prefers the term assimilation. 

2 The form 8sris occurs in the N. T. only as nominative. 

8 Here, however, we may, with Wahl, consider the Gen. as dependent on the omitted 
preposition dia; see § 50, 7, p. 421 sq. 


154 
Tth ed, 


176 


148 
Oth ed. 


155 
Tth ed. 


ah: 


149 
6th ed. 


164 § 24, THE RELATIVE PRONOUN. 


Repertor. IT. 124.1 Also in Acts xxiv. 21 dwvjs is éxpaga éords ete, 
probably js is not used for 9 (dwvy Kpdlew Matt. xxvii. 50; Mark i. 26; 
Rey. vi. 10, etc.) cf. Boisson. Nicet. p. 83, but ¢ov7 means ery, exclamation 
(loud utterance); the construction accordingly resolves itself into the 
phrase ¢wvyv kpdew (Rev. vi. 10 var.), which, though unusual, is not 
inadmissible ; cf. Isa. vi. 4 pwvijs As €xexpuryov. (In Eph. i.8 as érepiocevoer, 
the verb is to be taken transitively, as yvwpioas in vs. 9 shows.) That 
attraction nevertheless may affect even the Dative of the relative (so as 
to change it into a Gen.) is shown by G. Kriiger, as above, 274 f.; ef. 
Heinichen, Euseb. II. 98 sq. Accordingly Cod. A in 1 Tim. iy. 6 has ~ 
Ths Kadjs dbarkadlas Hs TapyKoAovVOnKas. Many expositors, too, as recently 
Fr. also, resolve Rom. iv. 17 xarévavre ob éricrevcey Oeod into Kat. Oeod & 
éxiat.; but this is not necessary ; see 2 below.? On the other hand, Matt. 
xxiv. 38 joav ... yamodvres Kal exyapilovres Gypt Hs Hépas cisplOe NGe eis 
Ti KiBwrdv is probably contracted from dypi THs jy. 7 <isnAOev. Similarly 
Luke i. 20; Actsi.2,22. In Lev. xxiii. 15 dad ris jyepas is dv mposeveyyre 
etc. Bar. 1, 19, we find the same attraction of the Dative of the relative 
when the two clauses are not merged into one; for though 7s jpépas (on 
which day) also occurs, yet in the Sept. the Dative of time predominates. 


2. Sometimes the opposite construction occurs: that is to say, 
the noun to which the relative refers is drawn into the construction 
of the relative clause and put in that case in which the govern- 
ing verb requires the relative to stand. When this occurs, the 
noun either 

a. Precedes the relative clause; as, 1 Cor. x. 16 tov dprov ov 
KAOpUEV, OVXL KoWwVia TOV cwpmaTos ; Matt. xxi. 42 (LXX.) AiGov 
Ov aTredoki“acay of oikodomovyTes, ovTos éyevnOn, 1 Pet. ii. 7; Luke 
X1l. 48 qravti & 006 mond, Tord EntnOyjcerat Tap avtod, probably 
also Luke i. 72, 73 prncOjvar SvaOjKns aylias attov, GpKov dv 
w@poce mpos ASpaapm, but probably not Acts x. 86, see below § 62, 3. 
(cf. Gieseler as above, 126; Krii. 224f.) ; Or, 

b. As respects position also is incorporated directly into the 
relative clause ; as, Mark vi. 16 dv éy@ azrexebdduca ‘Iwavyny, ob765 
éott, Philem. 10; Luke xix. 87. Likewise Rom. vi. 17 tmnxovcate 
éls Ov TrapeddOnTte Titov diday7s ; this may indeed be resolved into 
els TOV TUTrOV. Oud. dV Tap., an Acc. with a’ Passive, for 05 trapedoOn 
vpiv— (for a similar attraction affecting the Acc. of a more remote 
object see Demosth. Mid. 885. 8lenv Gua Bovropevor AaBeiv, ov 
ert TOV dAdXwy éreOéavto Opacdiy dvta, where Ov is for a, i.e. €v obs, 


1 And so, probably, should be taken Aristoph. Plut. 1044 rdaaw? eyd ris BBpews fis 
bBplCouat. 
2 Cf. Schmid in the Tiibing. Zeitschr. f. Theol. 1831, II. 137 ff. 


§ 24. THE RELATIVE PRONOUN. 165 


to be joined with Opac. dvra, and Dion. Hal. 9, 565 dyavaxrnats 
tpov wept wv vBpifecbe vr0 Tav ToAEu/@y, Demosth. ep. 4p. 118 b.) 
—or more simply (as Bornem., Riick., Fr., and others have main- 
tained) wrk. (TO) TUT@ O06. Els Ov Tap., since the construction 
vmaxovew Twit is the only one admissible here. Some explain 
even Acts xxi. 16 ayovtes tap @ EencPipev Mvacwr etc. by 156 
attraction: ay. mapa Mvdacova... map @ £ev., yet see § 31, 5. ie 
On 2 Cor. x. 13 see § 59, 7, p. 530. 

For both the constructions specified above there are additional 
parallels: a) Hippocr. morb. 4,11 tas mnyas as @vipaca, abtar 76 
cwpate etc., Lysias bon. Arist. p. 649; Aeclian. anim. 3,13; Her. 
2,106; Soph. El. 653, and Trach. 283 ; Eurip. Bacch. 443 sqq. ; 
Aristoph. Plut. 200; Alciphr. 3, 59, the well-known passage of 
Virgil (Aen. 1, 577) urbem quam statuo vestra est, Terent. eunuch. 
4,3,11; Sen. ep. 53; Wetsten. I. 468. From the Sept. Gen. 
xxxi. 16 rv d0£av iv adelreTO 0 Oeds ... Nuiv Ecrat, Num. xix. 22, 
and from the Acta Petri et Pauli ed. Thilo I. 7 dpxet ayiv rip 
Oripu Hv Exowev apa Ilérpov. b) Xen. A. 1, 9,19 e twa dpcn 
KatacKkevavovta Hs apxyor yopas (x@pav js apyor), Soph. Oed. C. 
907; El. 1029; Eurip. Orest. 63; Electr. 860, and Hec. 986; Plat. 
Tim. 49e.; Demosth. ep. 4 p.118 c.; Plut. Coriol. 9 (Evang. apocr. 
- p. 414; Acta apocr. p. 69); cf. Liv, 9,2; Terent. Andr. prol. 3. 
See, in general, Mtth. 1054 f.; Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 354. 

Under b. would come also Rom. iv. 17 xarévavre ob ériotevoe Oc0d, if 
it were to be resolved into kar. Oeod, © érior. This would be an extension 
of the attraction, become so common, to the Dative, of which no doubt 
occasional instances occur, Krii. 247 f. (Xen. Cyr. 5, 4, 89 nyero rév éavtod 
Tov TE TioToY, ols HoeTO Kal dv (i.e. TovTwy ots) HrioTeEL moAXovs) ; see 
Fr. Rom. I. 237. But the passage may be explained more simply thus: 
Kar. Geod, kar. ov ériat. (see above, 1 p. 164). The exposition proposed 
Bretschn. Lex. man. p. 220 is artificial in more respects than one. 

The mere incorporation of the antecedent into the relative clause with- 
out a change of case occurred: Matt. xxiv. 44 7 dpa od doxetre, 6 vids Tod 
avOpdrov épxerar (Gen. ii. 17; Exod. x. 28, 32,34; Num. vi. 13; xxx. 6), 
Matt. vii. 2 év @ bEeTpw petpetre, pmerpnOnoerar tyiv, Jno. Xi. 6; Mark xv. 12 
(Heb. xiii. 11); Luke i. 4. Here belongs, too, Rom. iv. 17, see above. 
The Greeks generally inserted in the subsequent principal clause a cor- 
responding demonstrative, and separated also the relative by some word 
from the antecedent, Krii. 123. 

Attraction with omission of the (demonstrative) word which occasioned it: 


1 On traxodvew eis particularly in Josephus, see Kypke, observatt. II. 167, though 
exception can be taken to some of his examples. 


166 § 24. THE RELATIVE PRONOUN. 


a. With the intervention of a preposition; as, Heb. v. 8 ¢uadev dd’ &v 
150 erae, i.e. ad TovTwv & (dv) érafe, Rom. x. 14; Jno. vi. 29; xvii. 9; 1 Cor. 
bth ed, Vil. 1 (Demosth. Euerg. 684 b. dyavaxrijcaca éf’ ois ey éxerdvOew, Plat. 
Cratyl. 3886a.; Xen. An. 1,9, 25; Arrian. Al. 4, 10,3; Lysias II. 242 
ed. Auger.). See § 23, 2. And 
b. Without a preposition; as, Rom. xv. 18 od roApjow Aadeiv te Gy ov 
Kateipyacaro etc. Acts viii. 24; xxvi. 16 (Soph. Phil. 1227; Oed. R. 855). 
179 Cf. § 23, 2; and the same place for attraction with an adverb of place 
(G. Krii. 302 ff). 


3. Sometimes the relative pronoun agrees in gender and number 
with the following noun which is predicate in the relative clause 
157 (0s... €o7i) annexed by way of explanation; (this, too, is a 
ith ed. species of attraction, Hm. Vig. 708): Mark xv. 16 tis atrgs, 6 éote 
mpaitwp.ov, Gal. iii. 16 7 oméppati cov, 65 éott Xpiords, 1 Tim. 
iii. 15 év olkw Oeod, Aris eotw éxxrAnoia Oeod, Hph. vi. 17; i. 14; 
Phil. i. 28; Eph. iii. 18 yur) éxcaxety €v tats OXtWpect pov Urrép bpor, 
Hrs éott Sofa vuav (for 6), also 1 Cor. iii. 17 (where Mey., without 
reason, makes a difficulty about oftwes). Cf. also, Rey. iv. 5; 
v. 6, 8 var. On the other hand, Eph. i. 23 79 éxxdrnola, iris éoti 

To cepa adtod, 1 Cor. iv. 17; Col. i. 245 ii. 17. | 

Some have erroneously referred to this head Col. iii. 5 #71s éoriw 
eldwroraTpela (Arws for ativa, Viz. wen); the reference is only to 
maeoveEla (Huther in loc.). In Col. iii. 14 6, the better attested 
reading, appears to be a pure Neut. without reference to the 
gender of the preceding or the following noun. On Eph. v. 5 see 
note 1. In Matt. xxvii. 53, and similar passages, 6 is quod sc. 
vocabulum. With regard to Heb. ix. 9 expositors are divided in 
opinion ; but most of them now refer #res to 1) mpeTn cxnvy verse 8, 
so that this passage does not fall under the above rule. Com- 
mentators differ still more widely in reference to Col. i. 27; but 
it is better to connect és with 6 mAodTos, as the principal noun, 
than with puarypcov. 

It should seem, then, that the relative conforms to the gender 
of the following noun mainly when the latter is viewed as the 
principal subject ; consequently, when the specific appellations are 
given of things, which, in the principal clause, were mentioned in 
general terms (Mark xv.; 1 Tim. iii., cf. Pausan. 2, 18, 45; Cie. pro 
Sest. 42, 91 domicilia coniuncta quas urbes dicimus), especially 
with names of persons (Gal. iii., ef. Cic. legg. 1,7, 22 animal, quem 
vocamus hominem), or where the relative should have been a 
Neut. used absolutely (Eph. iii.). On the other hand, the relative 


§ 24. THE RELATIVE PRONOUN. 167 


retains the gender of the noun in the principal clause, when the 
subordinate clause contains an explanatory amplification, a pred- 
icate of the principal object (as in Eph.i.; 1 Cor. iv.) ; (ef. Bremi 
on Nep. Thrasyb. 2). See, in general, G. Kru. as above, 90 ff, 
and, for the Latin, Zumpt, Grammat. § 372; Kritz, Sallust. I. 292. 

4. The relative appears to be put for the interrogative in a 
direct question,! Matt. xxvi. 50 éraipe, ép 6 (that is, ét 7/ Aristoph. 
Lysistr. 1101) rape. This isan impropriety of declining Hellenism 180 
(Schaef. Demosth. V. 285), which Lob. Phryn. p. 57 has substan- 
tiated as respects other relative pronouns (Plat. Alcib. 1 p.110c.), 151 
and which cannot be thought very surprising when the affinity Me 
between the words gui and quis is considered. This usage is 
unknown in classic prose. (In Plat. Men. 74d. recent editors, 
apparently without MS. authority, have substituted 7/. On Plat. 
rep. 8, 559 a. see Stallb.) But it is not necessary, on this account, 
to assume (with Mey.) that the above passage contains an aposi- 
opesis, or, with Fr., to take the sentence as an exclamation: vetus {58 
sodalis, ad qualem rem perpetrandam ades! By a question Jesus ith et. 
might effectively call the attention of Judas.to the wickedness of 
his design. (It would be more allowable in Mark ix. 11 XéyorTes > 
6,7 N€youotv ol ypapyparets etc. to regard 6,7e, with Lchm., as put 
for ri (that is, dua rd), just as in Heliod. 4, 16; 7, 14, quoted by 
Lob. as above, éstis is used in a direct question. But 6,7. never 
occurs in the N. T. as an interrogative pronoun (certainly not 
Jno. viii. 25, see § 54, 1), not even in an indirect question. As 
67s immediately follows the words quoted above, it might easily 
have been written by mistake also before Aéyouor ‘for ri, see Fr. 

If é7v, however, be the true reading, it should rather be taken for 
Te because, see § 53, 10, 5, p. 456.) 


Note 1. It is peculiar to Paul to connect sometimes two, three, or more 
clauses by a repetition of the relative pronoun, even when it refers to 
different subjects; as, Col. i. 24f., 28, 29; Eph. iii. 11, 12; 1 Cor. ii. 7, 
cf. 1 Pet. ii, 22. Elsewhere the relative in the Sing. is thought to point 
to a series of nouns, and to be used, as it were, in a collective sense ; as, 
Eph. v. 5 dru zas Opvos  axdlaptos 7) wAeoveKtys, OS ETTLVe cidOwAO- 
Adrpns ete. Cf. Fritzsche de conformat. crit. p. 46. But this is arbitrary, 
and would suppose just such a forced explanation of Col. iii. 5 (see above). 

Note 2. The relative clause beginning with ds, dsrus, is usually placed 
after the clause containing the antecedent; where, however, the former 


1“Os in an indirect question occurs in Soph. Oed. R. 1068 ; see Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. 
II. 372. Also cf. Passow, under the word. 


168 §25. THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN, 


clause is to be made prominent, it is put first (Krii. 123) ; as, 1 Cor. xiv. 87 
& ypadw iptv ore Kuptov éoriv, Heb. xii. 6 Ov ayaa K’pios wadever, Rom. vi. 2 
oitiwes ameOdvopnev TH dpaptia, mas ere Cyoopev, Mark viii. 34, etce.; with 
a demonstrative in the second clause, Phil. ili. 7 drwa qv pou Képdn, radta 
nynpa. etc. Jas. ii. 10; Jno. xxi. 25; xi. 45; Matt. v. 89; Luke ix. 50; 
Acis xxy.1h2 1 Cory, 2eetepeaxn (Lie 

Note 3. The Neut. 6 before a whole clause, in the sense of as to etc. 
(like guod in Latin), occurs in Rom. vi. 10 6 8 &j, & 76 66, Gal. ii. 20 
0 € viv C6 év capki, év riote C6 etc. cf. Mtth. II. 1063. In both passages, 

181 however, 6 may also be taken for an objective case: quod vivit, vita, quam 
vivit. See Fr. on Rom. as above. 

Note 4. During the reign of empiricism it was believed by many expos- 
itors that ds is used in prose, besides the well-known cases (Mtth. 742 f.), 
for the demonstrative. Now, every beginner knows how to construe such 
passages ; e.g. 2 Cor. iv. 6 6 eds 6 eimav ex okOrovs pas Adpiat, Os ehapipev 
év tais Kapdiats etc. In 1 Cor. ii. 9 and Rom. xvi. 27 the construction is 
anacoluthiec. 


152 § 25. THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN, AND THE INDEFINITE 
bth ed. i PRONOUN TI2. 


1. Not only is the Interrogative Pronoun tis, r/ ordinarily used, 
even in indirect questions and after verbs of knowing, inquiring, 
159 ete., while éstus, 6,74 is never so employed in the N. T- ( Matt. xx. 22; 
Ithed. Luke xxiii. 34 (Mark xiv. 86) Jno. x. 6; Acts xxi. 83; Rom. viii. 26; 
Col. i. 27, etc. ; cf. Xen. C. 1,1, 6; 1, 3,17; Mem. 1, 6, 4, ete. ; 
Hm. ad Aeschyl. p. 461; Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 823), but 7¢, in 
particular, stands even in cases where the Greeks would certainly 
have used 6,74, so that the interrogative is weakened apparently 
into the German was (Eng. what) ; as, Matt. x. 19 d00jceras bpiv 
. TE AadnoeTE quod dicatis, Luke xvii. 8 éroiwacov, Ti derTVATO, 
para, quod comedam (not quid comedam, which in this connection 
would hardly be allowable in Latin), cf. Bhdy. 443. “O,7« occurs 
once, Acts ix. 6. The transition to this usage of t/ appears in the 
construction Mark vi. 36 ti ¢aywow ovd« éxovor (Matt. xv. 32), 
for whieh with little difference of meaning 6,7e Paywow ovx éy. 
might have been employed, exactly as in Latin one may say either 
non habent quid comedant or non hab. quod com. (Ramshorn, lat. 
Gramm. 368). In the latter form of expression, éyecv and habere. 
simply convey the notion of having or possessing (that which they 
might eat, they have not); the former comprises the notion of 
inquiry (accordingly, habeo quid must sometimes be directly trans- 


AND THE INDEFINITE PRONOUN TI. 169 


lated’ I know, what): inquiring what they should eat, they have 
nothing (to eat). Similarly Xen. C. 6,1, 48 ov« eyo ti petfov cia, 
Hell. 1, 6,5; Soph. Oed. C. 317 ov« éyw ti fH; see, in general, 182 
Heindorf, Cic. N. D. p. 347. (The relative and interrogative are 
combined in 1 Tim. i. 7 p47 voodvres pte & NEyouot pte TeEpl TivwYr 
SiaBeBavodvta non intelligentes nec quod dicunt nec quid asserant. 
So in Greek authors are 7¢ and 6,7« coupled in parallel clauses. 
Cf. Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 248; I. 261; Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 641.) 


Schleusner, Haab (S. 82 f.), and others, refer to this usage many ex- 
amples which are of an entirely different nature; that is to say, in which 
a. ris retains its interrogative force, and must be rendered in Latin by quis 
or guid, as Matt. vii. 9 ris eora e€ ipadv advOpuros etc., quis erit inter vos 
homo etc., cf. Matt. xii. 11; Luke xiv. 5; xi. 5f.; or in which b. tis is not 
an interrogative, but the indefinite aliquis, as 1 Cor. vii. 18 wepurerpnprevos 
tis exAnOn, pi) eriaTacOw, was any one called that is circumcised (1 suppose 
the case), let him not become uncircumcised; Jas. v.13 kaxorabet tis, 
mposevxeoOw. It is inaccurately asserted that tus is used here for et tus. 
See appendix, § 64. In Jas. iii. 13 we must punctuate with Pott, Schott, 
and others, tis codos ... év tpty ; decéarw etc. Likewise Acts xiii. 25 may 
be read: tiva pe Srovoetre elvar; ovk eiph eyo. Still, I think the usual 
acceptation of tiva for ovrwa not to be rejected; cf. Soph. El. 1167; 
Callim. epigr. 30, 2. 

Tis is used sometimes, when only two persons or things are spoken 153 
of, for the more precise worepos (which never occurs in the N.T. as an bth ed. 
adjective) ; as, Matt. ix. 5 ri yap éorw edxordrepov ; xxi. 31 tis é« trav dvo 
eroinoe; Luke vii. 42; xxii. 27; Phil. i. 22. This occurs also in Greek 
authors (Stallb. Phileb. p. 168), who do not make so nice a distinction 160 
between ris and zdrepos as the Romans do between their gu’s and uter th ed 
(though even as respects these last, exceptions are not wanting). 

It ought not to be asserted that in phrases such as Luke xy. 26 ri ely 
ravra, Jno. vi. 9; Acts xvii. 20, the Sing. of the interrogative is put for 
the Plur. The Sing. ré sums up the plurality into one comprehensive 
whole: what (of what sort) are these things (hence also quid sibi volunt) ? 

On the other hand, in riva éoré etc. (cf. Heb. v. 12) there is a definite 
reference to the plurality: quae (qualia) sunt; cf. Plat. Theaet. 154 e.; 
155 c. (Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. 101; Weber, Dem. 192). 

The interrogative ri is sometimes placed at the end of the clause; as, 
Jno. xxi. 21 otros dé ri; The same occurs frequently in the orators with 
70s; Weber, Demosth. 180 sq. 

In the N. T. and the Sept. iva ri for what, wherefore, is also used as an 
interrogative ; as, Matt. ix. 4 tva ri tpeis evOupetobe wovnpd; xxvii. 46; 
Luke xiii. 7, etc. The expression is elliptical (as wt quid in Latin) for: 
iva ri yévyrae (after a past tense yévouro), see Hm. Vig. 849; Lob. Soph. 188 

22 


170 §25. THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN, 


Aj. p. 107, and occurs not unfrequently in Greek authors, particularly the 
later, Plat. apol. 26 d.; Aristoph. eccles. 718; Arrian. Epict. 1, 24a. bee 
Ruth ijldj:21 s“Sinxivos 341 Maccil? 7). 


2. The indefinite pronoun tes, Tz is joined to 

a. Abstract nouns, in order (among other purposes) to soften 
their import somewhat; as, Xen. Cyr. 9,1, 16 rodrous iyetro # 
axpatela Twi 1) ddiKig ij awedetg amreiva.—from a certain (a species 
of) incontinence or injustice, etc., Plut. Coriol. 14. Hence, when 
an unusual or a too bold figure of speech is used; as, Jas. i. 18 
aTapyn Tis quaedam (quasi) primitiae, Bttni. I. 579; Schoem. 

' Plutarch. Agis p. 73. 

b. Numerals, when the number is to be taken approximately 
only, and not precisely ; as, Acts xxiii. 23 do twds some two 
(about two), xix. 14, see Schaef. Demosth. III. 269; Mtth. 1080. 

c. Adjectives of quality or quantity, for rhetorical emphasis; as, 
Heb. x. 27 foBepa tis exdixnows terribilis quaedam (Klotz on Cie. 
Lael. p. 142, and Nauck in Jahn’s Jahrb. Bd. 52 8S. 183 f.), a 
positively (or very) terrible punishment (cf. Lucian. philop. 8 
goBepov tt Oéapa, D. 8.5, 39 ésizoves tis Bios, Aeschin. dial. 3, 17; 
Xen. Cyr. 1, 6, 14; 6,4,7; Heliod. 2, 23, 99; Lucian. dial: m. 
5,1; Plutarch. Phoc. c. 13, cf. Boisson. Nicet. p. 268); hence Acts 
Vill. 9 péyas Tis some great personage (of a man Xen. Eph. 8, 2; 
Athen. 4, 21, etc.). In these instances tus is equivalent to the 
emphatic a (Germ. ein: das war eine Freude, das ist ein Mann) : 
that was a joy (a great joy), that is a man (a clever man); ef. 
Acts v. 36 Xéyor eival twa éavtov pretending to be somebody (of 

154 importance) ; see Bhdy. 440; Kru. 129. To this corresponds 

th el. guidam in Latin, and, where no substantive or adjective is to be 
made prominent, aliquis ; as, aliquem esse Cic. Att. 8,15. (On 

161 the other hand, és tis does not occur in the N.T. In 1 Cor. ix. 22 

ithe some would insert it, after a few authorities, instead of wdvtes 
Twas, see Boisson. Eunap. p. 127; but without necessity, and even 
without critical probability. In Jno. xi. 49 eis tus unus aliquis 
may have been used for emphasis. ) 


In Matt. xx. 20 the Neut. ze aliquid may be used with emphasis for 
aliquid magni (see Fr. in loc.), but probably not. On the other hand it 
must be taken so in the phrase etvaé 7 Gal. ii. 6 ; vi. 3, etc. (the well-known 
aliquid esse in Latin). The emphasis depends on the connection of the 
passage (cf. Hm. Vig. 731), and is therefore of a rhetorical description. 
In classic Greek ri A€yeiv, ti tpaccew, are especially frequent. 

Note. When joined to a substantive, ris may stand either before or after 


t § 26. HEBRAISMS IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN PRONOUNS. 171 


it; as, tls dvnp and dvyp ts Acts iii. 2; v.1; x.1. The latter order is the 
more usual one in the N.T. On the other hand, it has been doubted 184 
(Mtth. S. 1081) whether ris can stand at the very beginning of a propo- 
sition; yet Hm. emend. rat. p. 95 makes no objection to this. In the N.T. 
compare 1 Tim. v. 24 twév avOpwrwv at duaprios rpddydol ciow ... Testy be 

etc. Acts xvii. 18; xix.31. The abbreviated forms tov, tw (Bttm. I. 301) 

are not used in the N.'T.; they have been unwarrantably introduced in 

1 Cor. xv. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 6. 


§ 26. HEBRAISMS IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN PRONOUNS. 


1. Instead of ovdeis, unde/s, we find sometimes in the N.T., 
according to the Hebrew idiom (Leusden, diall. p. 107; Vorst, 
Hebr. p. 529 sq.; Gesen. Lg. 831), od (2) ... was, the verb being 
always connected directly with the negative ; as, Matt. xxiv. 22 ov« 
av éow0n taca cap&, Rom. iii. 20 €& epywv vopov ov dixatwOyncerae 
maca odp&, Luke i. 87 ovx« ddvvatice: mapa tod Ocod Trav pha, 

1 Cor. i. 29 d7rws un Kavynontat Taca capé, etc., cf. also Rev. xxi. 27 
ov pr eiséhOn els avtny av Kowdv, Acts x. 14 oddémote Efayov Trav 
kowov, Rey. ix. 4 (Judg. xiii. 4; Susan. 27). 

On the other hand, ov was (yu? was) without an intervening 
word denotes (like non omnis) not every; as, 1 Cor. xv. 39 od 
maca cap— 7 avtn cdp&, Matt. vii. 21 od ras 6 Aéywv* Kvpie, KUpLE, 
elsedevoeTar els THY Bac. ... add O Trody, etc. not every one that 
calls me (readily) Lord, but (among such as do so) only he who 
doeth the will etc.;1 not the mere saying ‘ Lord’ fits for entering 155 
the kingdom of heaven, but etc., Acts x. 41. Soin the Plur. od Sta 
mavtes non omnes Matt. xix. 11; Rom. ix. 6; x. 16. 

This distinction is founded in the nature of the case: In the 162 
former instance ov negatives the notion of the verb (something ™" 
negative is asserted in reference to was: every man... will fail to 
be justified; the predicate, will not be justified, applies to every 
man, i.e. mo man will be justified) ;2 but in the latter case od 
negatives the notion of was. On the whole, however, this mode 185 


+I cannot concur in Fr.’s explanation (see also Priiliminar. S. 72f.), according to 
which od is here to be connected with the verb, so as to make the sense, no Lord-sayer. 
The second clause aa’ 6 mov by no means excludes saying Lord; mouety 7d OéAnMa 
700 watpds pov involves, on the contrary, the acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord. 

2 Gesenius, as above, merely sets down this linguistic phenomenon, without troubling 
himself to explain it. Hwald, on the contrary (8. 657), has at least indicated its proper 
acceptation. See even Drusius, ad Gal. ii. 16, and Beza on Matt. xxiv. 22 ; Rom. iii. 20. 
Gesenius’s distinction between od mas and a) was I have never comprehended. 


172 § 26. HEBRAISMS IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN PRONOUNS. 


of expression is rare, and, as more expressive, appears to have 
been purposely adopted in the passages in question, (which are 
mostly aphoristic sayings). It is confined mostly to the rendering 
of the O. 'T. swa-d>; whereas the LXX. as translators have it fre- 
quently.t. (What Georgi, Vind. p. 817, adduces to show that this 
construction is pure Greek, is wholly irrelevant. In all the pas- 
sages he quotes, as belongs to the substantive in the sense of whole, 

as yndé Tov amavta ypovov, or full, complete, maca avaykn. )* 
Strictly this Hebraism should be limited to the above expression 
ov (wy)... mas; for clauses with ads... od (un) *® contain for 
the most part nothing foreign to the classic idiom,‘ or the reason 
is obvious why the writer made choice of this particular turn of 
expression. 1 Jno. ii. 21 wav Webddos éx THs adnOelas ork Eotw all 
Jalsehood (every lie) is not of the truth any Greek might have 
written. Jno. ili. 16 ta mas 6 mictevwr els adtov pu) amroAnTat, 
arn’ etc. (var.) that every one believing on him may not perish, but 
156 ete. In Eph. v. 5 was ropvos 7) axaPaptos 7) wreovéxtns ... ovK Exee 
tthe. KAnpovouiav év TH Bactreia tod Xpictod, the apostle had perhaps 
at the beginning of the sentence an affirmative predicate in mind 
163 (Hzek. xliv. 9). Only in Eph. iv. 29; Rev. xviii. 22, and perhaps 
hed. Rey. xxii. 3 ovSév would have been more agreeable to a Greek ear. 


186 In Matt. x. 29 (Luke xii. 6) occurs €v é atréy od recetrae (vel) unum 
non, ne unum quidem (contrasted with édvo: éwo for an assarion, and not 
even one, etc.) Matt. v. 18. This construction (with a negative) occurs 


1 For instance, Exod. xii. 16, 44; xx.10; Deut. v.14; xx. 16; Judg. xiii. 4; 2Sam. 
xv. 11; Ps. xxxiii. 11; exlii. 2; Ezek. xxxi. 14 (Tob. iv. 7,19; xii. 11). Quite as 
frequently, however, they use the good Greek od .. . ovdels (oddév), Exod. x. 15; Deut. 
viii. 9; Josh. x. 8; Prov. vi. 35; xii. 21; or just the simple ovdefs, Josh. xxiii. 9. 

2 If Schleusner means to prove from Cic. Rose. Amer. 27 and ad famil. 2, 12 that non 
omnis is equivalent to nullus, he cannot have looked at these passages. 

3 That is, in the Singular; for in the Plural it is the current mode of expression in 
classic Greek also. Under this head comes the passage which, to explain the above 
Hebraism, Weiske, pleon. p. 58, has quoted from Plat. Phaed. 91 e. wérepov, pn, mdévras 
Tous umpocbev Adyous od dmodéxeaGe, 7) Tovs wév, Tos & ov ; do you receive not — i.e. 
reject — all, or do you receive some and reject others? How otherwise should this (with 
simplicity) have been expressed? In the Sept. cf. Num. xiv. 23; Josh. xi.13; Ezek. 
SKXi dd anim: 3% 

4 When a writer attaches the negative to the verb at the beginning of his sentence 
(ob dicoiwOhoera), he has already, in advance, the subject in his mind (as), and might 
therefore employ ovdeis. But if he begins with was, either he has not decided whether 
to use an affirmative or a negative verb, or it seems to him more suitable to make a 
negative assertion in reference to every one (was 6 motetwv ... ob uy amdAnra) than an 
affirmative in reference to no one. The statement, no believer shall perish, assumes as 
it were an apprehension which the speaker means to obviate. 


§ 26. HEBRAISMS IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN PRONOUNS. 173 


also in Greek authors ; as, Dion. H. comp. 18 (V. 122) pilav ovk av etpor 
tis cedida etc., antiqq. I. 980,10 pia re od Karedeirero (according to 
Schaef.’s emendation), Plut. Gracch. 9, see Schaef. on this passage and 
on Dionys. compos. p. 247; Erfurdt, Soph. Antig. p.121. From the Hebr. 
cf. Exod. x.19; Isa. xxxiv.16. This construction cannot be called either 
a Hellenism or a Hebraism ; it is everywhere designed to give greater 
emphasis than resides in ovde’s' (properly the same in signification, but 
weakened by usage). 

Luke i. 37 otk ddvvarnoe rapa Ged wav phya nothing, no thing (cf. 33 
and in Greek éos), is doubtless taken from Gen. xviii. 14 of the Sept. 
Matt. xv. 23 obk dmexpiOn airy Adyov is quite simple: he answered her not 
aword (there is no need of é€va here; just as we, too, do not emphasize the 
a)” The Greeks, too, could employ the same mode of expression; and 
its occurrence in 1 Kings xviii. 21 does not prove it to be a Hebraism. 


2. The one, the other is expressed sometimes by efs ... Kat ets, 

a. In antithesis, Matt. xx. 21; xxiv. 40; xxvil. 38; xvii.4; Mark 
x. 87; Jno. xx. 12; Gal. iv. 22 (but in Luke xvii. 34 6 eds ...6 
repos, cf. xvi. 13; xvill. 10; Aesop. 119 de Fur.) (so in Heb. 
omy Exod. xvii. 12; Lev. xii. 8; xv. 15; 1 Sam. x. 3, etc.), for 
which Greek authors use eis pév, cis dé or eis wév, 6 dé; see Fischer, 
ad Leusden. diall. p.385; Mtth. 742. What Georgi, Vind. p. 159 sq., 
and Schwarz, Comment. p. 421, quote as parallel to the N.T. 
expression, are more properly enumerations, or calculations of a 
sum total, e.g. eight, one... one... one ete. 

_b. In reciprocal statements ; as, 1 Thess. v. 11 otxodometre eis Tov 
éva, 1 Cor.iv.6. This is rather Aramaic (Hoffmann, Gramm. Syr. 


p. 830) — hence the Peschito also puts a double ae for addr. 


(Matt. xxiv. 10; Jno. xiii. 85) — though not at variance with 
Greek syntax, Her. 4, 50 &v mpos év cupBadrew, Lucian. conser. 
hist. 2 as ody év, daciv, évi twapaBandeiv, asin. 54. Compare also 
the phrase év av@ évos (Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 339; Bhdy. Dionys. 
perieg. p. 853) and Kypke IT. 339. 


As cuneus cuneum trudit, some translate Matt. xii. 26 6 catavas tov 157 
gartavav exBaddc the one Satan casts out the other ; but note the Art. 6... 6ihed. 
tov. On the other hand, cf. Luke xi. 17. 164 


The Heb. construction, a man ... to his friend or brother, is imitated by ith ed. 


1 Hence likewise o¥5¢ «fs are conjoined, nemo quisquam, nemo unus (Matt. xxvii. 14 
obdé Ev Hija ne unum quidem, Jno. i. 3; Rom. iii. 10; 1 Cor. vi. 5) Hm. Vig. 467; Weber, 
Dem. 501 (Xen. Cyr. 2, 3,9; 4,1, 14). In the Sept. this occurs frequently (particu- 
larly for 758 Nd), Exod. xiv. 28; Num. xxxi. 49. Cf. besides od ... moré 2 Pet. i. 21. 

2 Nor will any discriminating student think €va necessary in the above passage 
because eis is elsewhere expressed (Matt. xxi. 24 épwrhow buas Kayo Adyov Eva). 


174 § 27. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. 


187 the LXX. in Gen. xi. 8; xiii. 11; Judg. vi. 29; Ruth iii. 14; Jer. ix. 20 
etc. but does not occur in the N.T.; cf. however, from Sept., Heb. viii. 11 
ov pn dwWagwow Exactos tov tAyolov (better woAiryv) adtod Kal Exacros Tov 
adeAov aivrod. 

As to the Hebraistic circumlocution for the pronoun every by the repe- 
tition of the noun, e.g. 7u€pa. Kal yuépa, see § 54, 1, p. 463. 


CHAPTER III. 


ASH £5 NN 


§ 27. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. 


1. A Masculine noun in the Singular, with the Article, is often 
used collectively to denote the whole class; as, Jas. ii. 6 7Tiuacate 
tov mrwxov (Plur. in 1 Cor. xi. 22), v.6; Rom. xiv. 1; 1 Pet. 
iv. 18; Matt. xii. 35. This construction is especially common with 
national names ; as, 6 Iovdatos Rom. iii. 1 (so Romanus for Romani 
frequently) Markland, Eurip. suppl. v. 659. The Singular in all 
such cases presents the distinctive characteristic more exclusively 
and more forcibly than the Plural, — designating, as the latter does, 
a multitude of individuals. 

Similar to this construction is the use of the Singular to express, 
in reference to a plurality, an object which belongs to each of the 
individuals ; as, 1 Cor. vi. 19 676 TO TOpa UVpwv vaos T. ay. TVEv- 
patos (according to the best Codd.) ; Mark viii. 17 remwpapevnv 
éyere THv Kapdiap (Jas. ili. 14; Lukei. 66; 2 Pet. ii. 14, ete.) ; 
Matt. xvii. 6 érecay ent mpdéswmov avtov (Lukeii. 31; 2 Cor. 

“Gil. 18 ; viii. 24) 3} Rev. vi. 11 €000n avdtots crorXn AevKH (Luke 
xxiv. 4; Acts i. 10?); Eph. vi. 14 wepifwoapevor tHv oo hvy 
ipoav etc. This distributive Singular, as it may be called, is fre- 

188 quent in classic Greek; as, Xen. A. 4, 7, 16 eiyov xvnuidas Kab 
Kpavn kK. haxaiplov... Sdpv ete. Cyr. 4, 3,11; Hurip. Cyel. 225 ; 
Thue. 8,22; 4,4; 6,58; Pol. 8,49, 12; Ael. an.5, 4; ci Gig 
Rab. 4,11; Sen. ep. 87. In the Sept. cf. Gen. xlviii. 12; Lev. 
x. 6; Judg. xiii. 20; Lament. ii. 10; 1 Chron. xxix. 6; see also 


1 The phrases &rd or mpd mposdmov a’ray or bud, kata mp. wdvtwy etc. Luke ii. 31 ; 
Acts vii. 45; Exod. xxxiv. 11; Deut. iii. 18; vii. 19; viii. 20, etc., I should prefer, 
however, not to refer to this head, as they had already become adverbial. 


§ 27. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. 175 


testam. patr. p. 565.4. In the N.T. the Plural is the usual con- 158 
struction in this case (also Luke xxiv. 5; Acts 1.10). See in thed. 


general Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 264; Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 158. ne 


The collective use of the Singular is not to be extended beyond its 
natural bounds. In 1 Cor. vi. 5 dvaxptvar ava pécov Tod adeAqov, Tod adeA@od 
does not stand for rs adeAhorynros ; moreover, nothing would be gained in 
this way, since éva pécov between requires not a collective whole, but single 
individuals (the case is different in Matt. xiii. 25). It ought to have run 
ava. perov adeApod kai adeAov (Gen. xxiii. 15), or at least rév adeAdav airod 
(see Grotius), cf. Pol. 10, 48, 1; or the construction is a concise inaccuracy. 
Meyer’s explanation takes for granted also an expression which is inac- 
curate as it is without example. 


2. Conversely, the Plural of class (masc. or fem.) is used 
although the predicate refers primarily to only one individual, 
when the writer wishes to keep the thought somewhat vague ; as, 
Matt. 11. 20 te@vjKxacw of Entodvtes THY Yruynv Tod Tadiov (Herod 
the Great alone is meant, vs. 19), cf. Exod. iv.19. SeeAesch. Prom. 
67; KEurip. Hec. 403 ; Aeschin. adv. Timarch. 21 and Bremi in loc. 
Porson, Eur. Phoen. p. 36; Reisig, Conject. in Aristoph. p. 58, and 
C. L. Roth, gramm. quaest. e C. Tacito. Norimb. 1829, 4to. § 1. 

On the other hand, in Matt. ix. 8 éS0£acav tov Oedv tov Sorta 
efovolav toiavtTnv Tots av@pwrots, the reference certainly is 
not to Christ alone, but the expression must be taken as actually 
universal, like Heb. ix. 23. In of Anotai/ Matt. xxvii. 44 a different 
tradition from Luke xxiii. 39 must be recognized. Lastly, in 1 Cor. 
xv. 29 urép Tav vexpdv cannot easily be referred to (the dead) 
Christ (for then it would have been eis tods vexpovs), but Cunbap- 
tized) dead men are meant. 


The expression 70 eipnuévoy év rots tpodyjrats Acts xiii. 40; Jno. vi. 45 
(ev BiPAtw tov zpodyrav Acts vii. 42) is a general form of quotation, like 
in Paul’s Epistles, etc., employed when one does not wish, or is not able, 
- to indicate the passage precisely. Essentially similar is Matt. xxiv. 26 189 
év Tois Tapetous, opposed to év rH epypw, cf. Liv. 1, 3 Silvius casu quodam 
in stlvis natus. 

Tn Matt. xxi. 7 érdvw airév probably refers to fudri. There would, 
however, be no intrinsic absurdity in referring it to the two animals, any 
more than the expression émuBeBykus éxt dvov kat rdXov, verse 5, is absurd. 
We also say, loosely, he sprang from the horses, though only one of the 
team, the saddled horse, is meant. 


1 In 1 Thess. i. 7 ste yevécOa suas réwoy waot trois moredovow, the Singular is 
used quite regularly, as Paul had in view the church as a whole. 1 Cor. x. 6,11; 1 Pet. 
y. 3 are passages of a different kind, where the Singular would be surprising. 


176 § 27. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. 


Quite erroneously has the Plural émirodai in 1 Cor. xvi. 3 been taken 
for the Singular (Heumann in loc.). Though this Plural may be thus 
used of a single letter (Schaef. Plutarch. V. 446 ; Poppo, Thue. 1, 182), 
yet here the words dv émurroAGy are certainly to be joined to wéuw; and 
the sending of several letters to different persons is in itself not at all 
unlikely. 

166 38. Not a few nouns which are used by us ordinarily in the 
ith el. Singular, were employed exclusively, or at least predominantly, in 
159 the Plural; this is owing to the objects denoted by them having — 
“ from a general or from a Grecian or a Biblical point of view—some 
sensible or ideal manifoldness or comprehensiveness (Krii. 9f.) ; 
as, aila@ves Heb. i. 2 world (eradiv), ovpavoi coeli (Schneider, lat. Gr. 
Il. 476) cf. 2 Cor. xii. 2, Ta dywa the sanctuary Heb. viii. 2; ix. 8, 
12, etc., avatorai, dvcpai (Hast, West) Matt. viii. 11; xxiv. 27 
(Plato, def. 411 b.; epin. 990a.; D.S. 2,43; Dio. C. 987, 32; 
Lucian. peregr. 39), Ta deEia, apictepa, evovupa, the right, the left 
(frequently), Ovpar(fores, folding-door) Acts v. 19; Jno. xx. 19 
Gn Greek also wvAaz, but @vpar is a regular Plural in Acts xvi. 26f.; 
Matt. xxiv. 85), xoAzroe bosom Luke xvi. 23 (22 Sing.) ef. Pausan. 
6,1,2; Ael. 13, 31; also ta (aria of a (single) upper-garment, 
Jno. xix. 23; xiil.4; Acts xviii. 6; the names of festivals éyxaiua, 
yevéota, abupa (Ilavabjvaia, Saturnalia, Poppo, Thue. IT. 1V. 20), 
also yauoe marriage Matt. xxii. 2; Luke xii. 86 (ef. Tob. xi. 20) ; 
likewise dyrovia (Germ. Lohnung, soldier’s pay) Rom. vi. 23 (Fr. 
Rom. I. 428), and apyvpia (pieces of money, Shekel-preces) Matt. 
Xxvi LS op xxviii, 2. | 

When the names of countries or cities are Plural, this is due 
to their consisting (originally) of several provinces (as Galliae) 
or settlements ; as, "AOjvat, IIatapa, Pidurmot, probably also ta 
“IepocdAupa.} 

Lastly, nouns denoting a feeling, disposition, or state, express 
in the Plural the modes or acts in which the feeling, etc. manifests - 
itself; as, 1 Pet. ii. 1 aroOéuevor wacay Kaxiav ... Kk. UTOKpicets 
kK. PGovous kK. Tacas KaTaradrLas, 2 Cor. xii. 20 Epis, Gros, 
Ovmot, épiOetar, Katararsal, Widuptcpol, puciwcers, 
axkatactaciat, 2 Cor. xi. 23 év Oavatots ToddaKis, Eph. vi. 

190 11; Gal. v. 20; 1 Pet. iv. 3; Jas. ii. 1 (2 Cor. ix. 6) Jude 18; 1 Cor. 
vii. 2; Fr. Rom. II. 6; Kritz, Sallust. I. 76. So otxrippoi, van 
is more common than the Singular (only in Ool. iii. 12 var.). 
Here belongs also Eph. ii. 8 @edyjpara rhs capxds. See, in general, 


1 Cf, Nobbe, schedae Ptolem. I. 22. 


§ 27. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. 177 


Jacobs, Act. philol. Monac. 1. 154 sq.; Schoem. Plutarch. Agis 
p. 75sq.; Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 368; Heinichen, Euseb. HI. 18 sq. ; 
Bhdy. 62 f. 


The Plural aivara Jno. i. 13 of blood as generative matter, has a direct 
parallel only in Eurip. Ion. 693 in the poetic language ; but it is as easily 
accounted for in reference to a fluid as 7a vdara and 7a yadaxra Plat. legs. . 
10, 887 d. In Rev. xviii. 24 aiwara is a real Plural, and accordingly does 
not come under the above rule ;— a remark true also of ai ypadai, Ta iepa 
ypdppara, ai dafjxa Rom. ix. 4; Eph. ii. 12 (the covenants which God 
in patriarchal times repeatedly renewed with Abraham, Jacob, through 
Moses, cf. Wisd. xii. 21; 2 Mace. viii. 15). Similar is érayyeA‘ar in Heb. 

vii. 6. A Hebraistic Plur. majest. is not to be assumed in these words, 

nor in Jno. ix. 3; 2 Cor. xii. 1, 7 or Heb. ix. 23, where the statements are 167 
genera]. Ta oafPara when only the weekly day of rest is meant, Matt. tth ed. 
xii. 1; Luke iv. 16, etc., is either a transfer of the Aramaean form Nnavw, 

or framed after the analogy of names of festivals. More easily might aya 
ayiwv, Heb. ix. 3, denoting the most holy place of the temple at Jerusalem, 

be pronounced a Plur. excell., unless, with Erasmus and others, we prefer 

the accentuation ayia ayiwv (cf. deaia deAaiwy Soph. El. 839). However, 4¢9 
though this portion of the Israelitish sanctuary is mentioned in the ¢thed, 
Pentateuch under the designation 7d dywv trav dylwy (Exod. xxvi. 33; 
Num. iv. 4), cf. Joseph. Antt. 3, 6, 4, yet in 1 Kings viii. 6 the holy of holies 

is actually called ra dyia tov dyiwv. Cf. the Latin penetralia, adyta (Vir. 
Aen. 2, 297). : 

In reference to Phil. ii. 6 76 eivau ica G0, where ica is used adverbially, 
compare the classic usage Iliad. 5,71; Odyss. 1, 432; 15,520; Soph. Oed. 
R. 1179; Thue. 3, 14; Philostr. Ap. 8, 26, etc. See Reisig, Oed. Col. 526. 


4. The Dual of nouns—except the numeral dvo —does not 
occur in the N. T., but in its stead only the Plural is used (with 
dvo in Matt. iv. 18; xviii. 9; xxvi. 87; Jno. iv. 40; Acts xii. 6, etc.); 
likewise in later Greek, generally, the dual-form is rare. Only in 
Rey. xii. 14 tpéheras Karpov Kai Katpovds Kat utov Karpov does the ° 
‘ Plural of itself denote two years; this, however, is an imitation of 
the Chaldee jy Dan. vii. 25 in the Greek versions, and in this 
connection it may be remarked that the Chaldee regularly has nd 
dual (my Chald. Grammat. 8.77). Accordingly the Plural, placed 
between one year and half a year, was allowably made to signify 
two. In later Greek, ypdvos, ypovor, came more and more to 
signify year, years. See also Evang. apoc. p. 60, 61; Epiphan. 
Mon. 29, 28. 


a 
Bornem. supposes he has found a trace of the Dual in Acts xv. 12 in 191 


the reading éfyyoupévw (v is added above the@ine) of one Cod. from which 
33 : 


178 § 27. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. 


Tdf. notes the reading éyovpevor, and joyously hails the discovery of this 
number ! 


5. The Neuter, sing. or plur., is sometimes employed to denote 

a person, when the writer purposely expresses himself in general 
terms; as, 2 Thess. ii. 6 76 Kkatéxov oidate (T 6 Kxatéyov), Heb. 
vii. 7 70 €XatToOv bo TOD KpeltTOVos evAoyetTat (Theodor. in loc.), 
[ Matt. xviii. 11], Luke i. 85; 1 Cor. i. 27, 28 ta pwpa r. kocpov... 
Ta ac0evh, ta eEovPevnuéva (26 ot codoi), Jno. vi. 37; 1 Jno. v. 4 
cf. 1; (1 Cor. xi. 5, but not Col. i. 20; Heb. vii. 19; Jno. iii. 6; 
see the more recent expositors. In Rom. xi. 32 the established 
reading is rods wavras). Similarly, Thuc. 3, 11 ta xpariota emi 
Tovs UTrodeerTEépous Evverrpyov, Xen. A. 7, 8, 11 ta pev hevyovra Kat 
aTrobLopdaKovTa mets txavor écopeba Si@Kew Kal pactevery, Hv O€ TIS 
av0icrnras etc., Poppo, Thue. I. 104; Seidler, Kurip. Troad. p. 61 ; 
Kritz, Sall. I. 69. 

168 6. The Neuter seems to be employed for the Feminine in Mark 

th el. xii, 28 rola éotlv évtod) TpeTn TavtTov (for macov, which is a 
correction). But wdavrwy has no relation to the gender of the 
noun, but is equivalent to the general expression omniwm (rerum) ; 
ef. Lucian. piscat. 13 ula rdavtev ye adnOns dirocopia (according 
to the common reading; otherwise wdvtws), Thuc. 4, 52 tds Te 
ddras Toes Kal TavTOY pddota THY “Avtavdpoy, see d’Orville, 
Charit. p. 549 sq.; Porson, Eur. Phoen. 121; Fr. Mr. l.c. 

161 On the other hand, we cannot say with d’Orville (p. 292 sq.) 

shel. that in Acts ix. 87, Novcavtes adtiv €Onxav, the masc. ove. is used 
for ANovcacat because the washing of corpses was the business of 
women. The writer expresses himself in the most general terms 
(Hm. Soph. Trachin. p. 89) and without reference to persons: 
they washed and laid. Had Luke intended to refer to that custom 
with historical precision, he would have employed more definite 
language. Of. Xen. M. 2, 7, 2 cuvernrAOacw ... adedpai Te Kat 
aderdibal cal dave trial tocadTat, OsT elvas ev TH oikla Tecoapakaideka 
Tous édevOépous the free (free persons) were fourteen, where 
the Masculine is used though by the free (as it appears) females 
are to be understood. Suet. Ner. 83 acceptum a quadam Locusta, 
venenariorum inclita. (Luke xxii. 58, cf. Matt. xxvi. 71 — the 
accounts are different; see Mey.) 


Neither is the Masculine used for the Feminine in the Sept. in Gen. 

192 xxiiit 3 dvéorn “ABpadp ard tod vexpod adrod... 4 Odw Tov vexpov 
jeov (15), though Sarah is meant; nor in the History of Susann. 61 ézoiycav 
‘adrots Ov TpdrroV exovnpetoravro T® trnolov, though the reference is to 


§ 28. THE CASES IN GENERAL. 179 


Susanna. In the former case we Germans also say: er begrub seinen 
Todten (similarly in Soph. Antig. 830 P6névy —vulg. fOiwéva— Tots ib éors 
éyxnpa Aaxeiv péya), and in Greek corpse is always 6 vexpds, never in the 
Feminine ; see, further, Hm. Soph. Antig. p. 114, 176. 

Note 1. In Rom. xi. 4, containing a quotation from the Old Test. (1 Kings 
xix, 18), we find the Fem. 7 Baad (Hos. ii. 8; Zeph. i. 4), probably with 
no secondary contemptuous meaning as the feminine forms of names of 
false gods are said to be used in Arabic and Rabbinic (?), see Gesen. in 
Rosenm. Repertor. I. 159 and Tholuck in loc., and, on the other side, Fr. 
Rom. II. 442; but Paul, quoting from memory, might easily write 7 Baad 
as he had occasionally found it in the Sept. (yet at present the Codd. vary), 
though in this very passage the Sept. has r@ Baad. RRiickert in loe. is in 
perplexity as often elsewhere. After all, it was matter of indifference 
whether the male or the female Baal was mentioned. ‘Theile tries to 
explain by the usage of the Sept. poryadides in the general address in Jas. 
iv. 4; but see, on the other hand, de Wette. ‘The omission of the words 
poorxot kat has no decisive external authority in its favor; and it would be 
carrying deference to the (other) principal Codd. too far, to refuse to 
admit errors of transcription even when similar words come together. 

Note 2. A noun of any gender, taken merely as a word, is joined, of 
course, to the Neuter Art.; as, Gal. iv. 25 76 “Ayap, the (word) Hagar. 169 
On the other hand, the Fem. should seem to be used for the Neut. in + ith ed, 
ovat Rey. ix. 12; xi. 14; probably, however, some such word as OXtYWus or 
taAdatwpia floated before the mind of the writer. 

Note 3. On the adverbial use of a Fem. Adjective, as tia, kar’ iSiar, etc., 
see § 54, 1, p. 463. 


§ 28, THE CASES IN GENERAL. 162 

Gth ed, 
1. Foreigners found no difficulty in comprehending in the gen- 
eral the respective import of the Greek cases (Hm. de emend. rat. 
J. 1837 sqq.; Bhdy. S. 74 ff.).1. And even the Jews were able to 

express in their language plainly enough the common relations 193 
of case, although without the aid of terminations; the mode of 

denoting the Genitive in particular, approximated in Aramaic to ° 

that of the Occidental tongues. It remained, however, a matter 
of more difficulty to learn to catch the impressions made upon a 
Greek by the oblique cases in all their manifold and sometimes 
far-extended applications. Such a use of cases, moreover, did not 


1 A monograph on this subject is, J. A. Hartung, iiber die Casus, ihre Bildung und 
Bedeut. in der griech. u. lat. Sprache. Erlang. 1831, 8vo. (Rumpel, iib. die Casuslehre 
in Beziehung auf die griech. Sprache. Halle 1845, 8vo.) 


180 § 28. THE CASES IN GENERAL. 


accord with the graphic and explicit phraseology of Orientals ; 
and we find, accordingly, that in the N. T., agreeably to the 
Kastern idiom and sometimes in direct imitation of it, preposi- 
tions are frequently employed where in classic Greek the simple 
cases would have sufficed even in prose; for instance, ddovas éx, 
éoOiew amd, weréxew €x for dvdovan, éoOiew, weréyew Ties (cf. § 30), 
moneuety peta Tivos for Twi, KaTyyopey and éyKxandeiv Kata TWOS 
(Luke xxiii. 14; Rom. viii. 83) for ruvi,! éyelpew twa eis Baoiréa 
Acts xiil. 22 (§ 82), Baccrevew éri tue or tivd (>9 Go) for Twos, 
afaos aro tT. for the Genitive alone (Krebs, obs. e Josepho p. 73 sq.). 
[Hither may be referred also without hesitation puetcOar év rt. 
Phil. iv. 12 for twi; see Wiesinger in loc.] From the Sept. ef. 
peldeoOat ert Tut or Twos or bTép TWos (52 DIN). 


This use of prepositions with cases instead of cases alone, is, however, 
in general characteristic of (antique) simplicity, and occurs therefore in 
Greek, not only in the earlier poets, as Homer, but in prose writers also, as 

170 Lucian; see Jacob, quaest. Lucian. p.11 sq. Hence even from good writers 
ith ed. many instances of the kind may be quoted, such as vavew dé, cf. Mtth. 833. 


2. No case is ever in reality put for another (enallage casuwum). 
Sometimes, however, two cases can be used with equal correct- 
ness in one and the same connection when the relation to be 
expressed may be viewed in two different ways; for example 
"Accipios TO yéver and Td yévos, TposKuvety Tie to show reverence 
to one, and mposxuvety tiva to revere one, Kadads Toveiv Twa and Tut 
(Thilo, Act. Thom. 38), évoyos tws and twos (Fr. Mt. p. 223) 
Sous Twos and tw, mAnpodaCai twos (made full ef something) 
and ti (filled with something). Also miprvyjcKec@at te and Tivos 
(like recordari ret and rem) ; in the former case (with the Ace.) 

163 I conceive of the remembering as directed (transitively) to the 

bth el object ; with the Gen. (meminisse rev) the remembrance is con- 
ceived of as emanating or coming from the object. It cannot be 
said, therefore, that in any instance the Dat. or Acc. is put for 
the Gen., or vice versa; but both cases, logically, are alike correct, 
and it only remains to notice which construction has become the 
more usual, or whether one of them belongs especially to the later 

194 language or to any particular writer (as evayyedifecOal twa, 
MPOSKUVELV TLL). 


_ 1As the Byzantines sometimes say: dyavarreiy or dpyi{ecOar katd twos, or Dio 
Chr. 38, 470 dpyi¢ec@ct pds Tiva. . 

2 The distinction which Schaef. Demosth. V. 328, lays down between these two con- 
structions is not confirmed by the N.T. Cf. besides, Mtth. 850. 


§ 29. NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. 181 


Perhaps the most absurd instance of enallage caswum that could be 
alleged, would be 2 Cor. vi. 4 cumordvres Eavtovs os Geod SiaKovor for 
duaxovouvs. Both expressions, indeed, can be used, but in different significa- 
tions. J commend myself as instructor (Nom.) means: in the office of an 
instructor which I have undertaken; but J commend myself as an instructor 
(Acc.) means: as one who wishes or is able to be an instructor. 


3. Every case, as such, stands in a necessary connection, ac- 
cording to its nature, with the structure of the sentence in which 
it occurs. This connection is most direct as regards the Nom. and 
Acc., the former as the case of the subject, the latter as that of 
the object ;— for secondary relations, the Gen. and Dat. There 
are also, however, casus absoluti i.e. cases which are not wrought 
into the grammatical structure of the sentence, — cases which are 
grammatically isolated, and have only a logical connection with 
the sentence. Nominatives absolute are the most frequent and 
the most distinctly marked (Bengel on Matt. xii. 56). Real Ac- 
cusatives absolute are more rare (§ 63. I. 2d.), cf. Fr. Rom. II. 
11 sq., for what is called an Accusative absolute is often dependent, 
though loosely, on the construction of the sentence. As to Geni- 
tives and Datives absolute, the import of these cases proves them 
to be regular component parts of the sentence. See, in general, 
A. de Wannowski, syntaxeos anomalae graecae pars de construc- 
tione, quae dicitur, absoluta, etc. Lips. 1835, 8vo.; F. W. Hoffmann, 17¥ 
observata et monita de casibus absol. ap. Graecos et Lat. ita positis Mth ed. 
ut videantur non posse locum habere. Budiss. 1836, 4to. (it treats 
only of the Gen. and Dat. absolute) ; J. Geisler, de graecor. nom- 
inativis absol. Vratisl. 1845, 8vo., and E. Wentzel, de genitivis et 
dat. absol. Vratisl. 1828, 8vo. But the whole subject of the Nom- 
inative absolute comes under the head of Structure of Sentences. 


§29. NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. 


1. A noun considered simply and solely in itself is represented ° 
by the Nominative ; and is cither subject or predicate in a sentence, 
according to the latter’s structure; as, Jno. i. 1 év apy jv 6 doyos, 
Kph. ii. 14 adrés éorev 1%) elpyvn judv. 

Sometimes, however, a Nominative, without being wrought into 164 
the structure of the sentence to which it belongs, is either placed th et 
at its head as a sort of title or topic (Nom. absol.), or inserted as 195 
a term of designation (Nom. tituli) as if it were an indeclinable 


182 § 29, NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. 


word: a. Acts vii. 40 6 Mais obtos ... ovx oldapev TL yéyovev 
auT@, see § 28,8. b. Jno. xviii. 10 jv dvoya tH S0vAm Maryos, 
Rev. vi. 8; viii. 11; xix. 13 (Demosth. Macart. 669b.), Luke xix. 
29 pos TO dpos TO Kadovpevov "EdXaov.! Cf. 1 Sam. ix. 9 tov 
Tpobyntnv é€xdrer 0 Aads éutrpocbev 6 BXéwav, Malal. 18, 482; 
10, 247 see Lob. Phryn. 5172 But Acts i. 12 dad dpous Tod Kadov- 
pévou ’ EXat@vos. 


Usually, however, names, where an oblique case is necessary, take that 
case, and so are construed as part of the sentence (and é6voyari merely in- 
terposed) ; as, Acts xxvii. 1 éxarovrapyn dévoparti ‘IovAiw, ix. 11,12 dvdpa 
"Avaviav évopate eiseAOdvra (xviii. 2; Matt. xxvii. 32; Luke v. 27), xviii. 
7 oikia Tivos dvopart “lovarov, also Matt. i. 21, 25 xadéces 7O dvopa adrod 
‘Inooty, Luke i. 13 (as an apposition to évoya), even Mark iii. 16 éréOyxev 
dvowa TH Zipwve Ilérpov. (Different modes of expression are combined in 
Plut. Coriol. 11.) 

172 In Rev. i. 4 the Nom. 6 dv x. 6 jv K. 6 épxdpevos (Mint the Immutable) 
ith ed. ig designedly used as indeclinable. See § 10. p. 68. 


2. Coincident with a. above is the use of the Nom. (with the 
Article) in addressing, particularly in calling or commanding ; 
consequently, instead of the Vocative, which was intended for this 
purpose (Fischer-Weller HII. 1. 819sq.; Markland, Eurip. Iph. Aul. 
446). This use of the Nom. sometimes occurs, also, in the N. T., 
as Matt. xi. 26 val, 6 matnp (€é£opodoyodpal cou 25), OTL ovTwS 
éyéveto, Heb.i.8; x.7 (in the Sept. cf. Ps. xlii. 2; xxii. 2), especially 
in the Imperat., as Luke viii. 54 7) mats éyeupe, Matt. xxvii. 29 yatpe 
6 Bacireds T. Iovd. Jno. xix. 8; Mark v. 41; ix. 25; Eph. vi. 1; 
Col. iii. 18; Rev. vi.10. This form of expression may have origi- 
nally possessed some degree of roughness or harshness (Bhdy. 67), 
and retains it even in Greek prose. Afterwards, however, it was 
employed without special emphasis, and also in the kindest ad- 


1 Jn all earlier editions (including that of Zchm.) we find éAauév. I am not prepared, 
with /’r., to pronounce this accent positively wrong. Luke, intending his Gospel for 
foreign readers, in mentioning for the first time the Mount of Olives, well enough known 
in Palestine, might naturally say, the so-called Mount of Olives, as in Actsi. 12. But 
the expression mpbs 7d dpos Td Aeyduevov éAaidy would have to be resolved into 7b Aeyd- 
pevov Upos edadv ad montem qui dicitur olivarum; and the Article before éA. would be by 
no means necessary. Perhaps even the Syriac translator read ’EAady ; he renders the 


above as he does Acts i. 12: {20} Lo29 {po ddor {5a but dpos trav er. Matt. 


xxi. 1, simply {dae12 (5a. xxiv. 3 ete. 


2 We find even thy avOpwrotéKos dwviy Theodoret. IV. 1304, thy Oeds mpos- 
nyopiay IIT. 241; IV. 454, where the Romans (a circumstance which modern writers of 
Latin generally overlook) always employ the Genitive. 


§ 29. NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. 183 


dresses, as in Luke xii. 32 yu) do8od, To puxpov molipvov, viii. 54 
(Bar. 4, 5), even in prayers, as in Luke xviii. 11; Heb. x. 7. 

On the other hand, Jno. xx. 28, though directed to Jesus (eizrev 196 
avT®), is rather exclamation than address; and, in the Greek 
authors, such a Nom. has early and strong prominence (Bhdy. as 
above, Krii. 12). So also Luke xii. 20 (according to the reading 165 
ddpwv, and 1 Cor. xv. 36, where d&dpor has little authority in its 
favor), likewise Phil. iii. 18, 19 woAXol yap mepurratodawy, ods Tod- 
AdKis EXeyov ... Tos exOpodrs Tod atTavpod Tod Xp., wv TO TES 
amTodeia ...06 Ta emiyera hpovodytes, perhaps also Mark 
xii. 38-40 Brérete amd TOV ypappatéwv, THY OedovTMV ... Kal 
aoTracpmovs ... Kal mpwtoKxabedpias ... 0b KatecOiovTes Tas 
oikias...o00ToOL AnWorvTat TEepiacoTEpov Kpipa (yet here 
the words of xatecO. may also be joined with otros Ajpyovtar).| — 
Vocative and Nominative are united in Rev. xviii. 20. 

3. In the N. T., however, the Vocative, with or more frequently 

without @, is far more common than the Nom. in addresses. We 
find ® only in addresses, Acts i. 1; xxvii. 21; xviii. 14; 1 Tim. 
vi. 11, mostly of adjuration and censure (Lob. Soph. Aj. 451 sq., 
see Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 4), Rom. ii. 1,3; ix.20; 1 Tim. vi. 20; 
Jas. ii. 20; Gal. iii. 1, or in exclamations, as Luke xxiv. 25; Acts 
xiii. 10. On the other hand, in mere accosting or calling the 
Vocative without ® is employed, as Luke xiii. 12; xxii.57; xxiii. 
25; Matt. ix. 22; Jno.iv. 21; xix. 26; Acts xiii. 15; xxvii. 25. 
Even at the beginning of a speech, where ® is regularly prefixed 
by the Greeks, we find in the N. T. for the most part the Vocative 
alone: Actsi. 16; ii. 143; il1.12; xiii. 16; xv. 18 (see, however, 
Franke, Demosth. p. 193).? 


An adjective belonging to a Vocative is put in the Voe. also; as, Jas. 173 
ii. 20 & avOpw7e xevé, Matt. xviii. 82; Jno. xvii. 11 (but cf. Jacobs, Achill. 7th ed 
Tat. p. 466) ; on apposition with the Vocative, however, see § 59, 8. 

Note. Some have erroneously attributed to the language of the N. T. 

a Hebraistic circumlocution for the Nominative, 

a. by means of the Acc. with eis, in the phrases etva: or yiverOat eis TL. 
(Leusden, diall. p. 182). By far the greater number of the passages ad- 
duced are quotations from the Old Test. or expressions taken from it that 
have become standing phrases (Matt. xix. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. v. 31; 


1 H[m. praef. ad Eur. Androm. p- 15sq. says, mihi quidem ubique nominativus, quem 
pro vocativo positum volunt, non vocantis sed declarantis esse videtur: o tu, qui es 
talis. This applies to some of the above passages but not to all, and ought probably 
to be asserted primarily only of the poets. 

2 On @ before the Vocative, sce, in general, Doberenz, Progr. Hildburgh. 1844, 4to. 


"184 § 30. GENITIVE. 


Heb. viii. 10, ete.). Besides, it was overlooked that the expression 
197 yivecOau cis ru fiert i.e. abire (mutari) in alig. (Acts v. 86; Jno. xvi. 20; 
Rey. viii. 11) may be used in Greek (Georgi, Vind. 337; Schwarz, Com- 
ment. 285), and is used, by the later authors at least, even in reference to 
persons (Geo. Pachymer. I. 345 eis cvupaxous adrois yivovrat) ; further, it was 
not considered that in the Hebrew expression equivalent to efvas eis rt, the 
> does not properly express the Nom. but corresponds to our (turn or serve) 
to or for something, (Heb. viii. 10 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 22, cf. Wisd. ii. 14; Acta 
apocr. 169). In 1 Cor. iy. 3 uot eis éXayurrov éorw signifies, to me (for me) 
it belongs to what is of least importance, most insignificant (I rank it as 
such). Eis ovdév AoywoOjvor Acts xix. 27 is similar: to be accounted as 
166 nothing (Wisd. ix. 6)... In Luke ii. 34 xetrau els rrdow the preposition 
6th ed. indicates in like manner the destination, and does not conflict with Greek 
analogy, see Phil. i. 17 (16); 1 Thess. iii. 3, cf. Aesop. 24,2 eis petlova 
co. apéheav evopat, and the Latin auxilio esse (Zumpt, Gr. S. 549). 
See, further, § 32. 4. b. p. 228. 
b. by means of év as an imitation of the Hebrew Beth essentiae (Gesen. 
Lgb. 838; Knobel on Isa. xxviii. 16), in the passages Mark v. 25 yury tes 
ovca év pioe aiuaros, Rev. i. 10 eyevouny év mvevmare ev TH KupLaKH NEP 
(Glass. I. 31), Eph. v. 9 6 xapros tod dwrés &v réoy ayabwovvyn (Hartmann, 
linguist. Einl. 384), and Jno. ix. 80 év rov7w Gavpaordy éore (Schleusner, 
under év). But, in the first passage, etvar év f. is to be in the state of, ete. 
In the second, yiveoOat év tvedpari év is to be present anywhere in spirit. 
In the third, <ivar év is equivalent to contineri, positum esse in (see the 
expositors). The last passage may be aptly rendered: herein is a marvel- 
lous thing. Gesenius too has attributed this Hebraistic construction to 
Greek and Latin writers unwarrantably ; for etvar év codots, tn magnis 
viris (habendum) esse, assuredly contains nothing anomalous, but is quite 
a natural combination, and is to be rendered, belong to the number of. “Ev 
and iz would be equivalent to a Beth essentiae only in case the expression 
were: év copa, tn sapienti viro, for copds, sapiens. But no reasonable 
man can talk so, and in a word the Hebraistic Beth essentiae construction 
174 is a pure figment of empirical grammarians ;? see my edition of Simonis 
ith ed. p. 109, and Fr. Mr. p. 291sq. The other examples adduced by Haab 
(S. 337 f.) are so manifestly inadmissible that we will not tarry a moment 
upon them. 


198 § 80. GENITIVE. 


1. The Genitive is acknowledged to be the whence-case — (the 
case denoting source, departure, or descent; cf. Hartung, Casus 
1 Quite different the expression xphuara cis dpydpiov Aoyi{eoOu Xen. C. 8, 1, 33. 


2 With the entirely misunderstood 847 3993, Exod. xxxii. 22, compare Ael. 10, 11 
&robavety ev KaAG éorw. Should this too be taken for caddy éoti 2 


§ 80. GENITIVE. 185 


S. 12), and is most clearly recognized as such in connection with 
words expressive of action, and accordingly, with verbs. Its most 
common and most familiar appearance in prose, however, is in 
connecting two substantives ; here, through its gradually extended 
signification, it denotes every sort of dependence or belonging ;1 
€.g. 6 KUpLos TOD KOcpov, Iovdas "IaxwBov. 

We shall consider first this use of the Genitive — (in connection 
with which even a Pronoun or the Article cf. § 18, 3 may hold the 
place of the governing word). And since even this comprehends, 167 
in plain prose alone, a great diversity of significations (Schaef, ‘th ed 
Hurip. Or.-48) exclusive of the common instances, — to which 
belong particularly the Gen. of quality, Rom. xv. 5, 13 etc., and 
the partitive Genitive, Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 15, — we notice, 

a. The Genitive of the Object after substantives which denote 
an internal or an external operation —a feeling, judgment, action 
(Krii. 30 f); as, Matt. xiii. 18 tapaBor%) tod o7elpovtos parable 
of i.e. concerning the sower, 1 Cor. i. 6 waptipiov tod Xpictod tes- 
tamony concerning Christ (ii. 1 cf. xv. 15), viii. 7 9 cuveldnows Tod 
eldwrouv consciousness about the idol, i.18 6 Adbyos 6 Tod cTavpod, 
Matt. xxiv. 6 axoat modu rumors of wars (concerning wars), cf. 
Mtth. 814; Acts iv. 9 evepyecia avOpmmrov towards (conferred on) 

a man (Thuc. 1, 129; 7,57; Plat. lege. 8, 850b.), Jno. vii. 13 ; 
xx. 19 GoBos ‘Iovsaiwy fear in reference to the Jews (Eurip. Andr. | 
1059), xvii. 2 €€oucla macys capKos power over (Matt. x.1; 1 Cor. 
ix. 12), 2 Pet. ii. 15, 15 pic Ods ddixias wages for unrighteousness, 
Rom. x. 2 Gros Geod zeal for God (Jno. ii. 17; 1 Mace. ii. 58; 
otherwise 2 Cor. xi. 2), Heb. ix. 15 drodttpwors Tay TapaBdcewv 
redemption from (Plato, rep. 1. 329 ¢.). Compare likewise Matt. 
xiv. 1 (Joseph. antt. 8, 6, 5) Luke vi. 12 (Eurip. Troad. 895) Eph. 

li. 20; Rom. xv. 8; 2 Pet.i. 9; Jas. ii. 4; 1 Cor. xv.15; Heb. x. 
24. For examples from Greek authors, see Markland, Eur. suppl. 199 
838 ; d’ Orville, Char. p. 498; Schaef. Soph. II. 201; Stallb. Plat. 
rep. II. 201, and Apol. p. 29; Poppo, III. I. 521. ; 

The following phrases are of frequent recurrence in the N. T.: 175 
ayamn Tov Oeod or Xpicrod love to God, to Christ, Jno. v.42; 1 Jno. Med 
li. 5,15; iii. 17; 2 Thess. iii. 5 (but not Rom.v. 5; viii.35; 2 Cor. 


? 


iv. 14; Eph. ill. 19), Hd80s Gcod or xvpiov Acts ix. 81; Rom. iii. 18 ; 


‘ If the Genitive is viewed not so much as respects its origin as abstractly, its nature 
may be defined as follows (Hm. Opusc. I. 175 and Vig. p. 877) : Genitivi proprium est 
id indicare, cujus quid aliquo quocumque modo accidens est. Cf. de emendanda rat. 
p- 139. Similarly M/dv. 49. See, moreover, Schneider on Caesar, Bell. Gall. 1, 21,2. * 
24 


186 § 80. GENITIVE. 


2 Cor. v.11; vii. 1; Eph. v. 21, wictis tod Oe0b, Xpicrod or ’Inaod 
Mark xi. 22; Rom. ili. 22; Gal. ii. 16; iii. 22; Eph. iii. 12; Phil. 
iii. 9; Jas. ii. 1; Rev. xiv. 12 (alors adnOelas 2 Thess. ii. 13), 
trakon Tod Xpiotod or Tt. wiatews etc. 2 Cor.x.5; Rom. i. 5; xvi. 
26; 1 Pet. i. 22 (2 Cor. ix. 13). But ducacoctvn Oeod, in the doc- 
trinal phraseology of Paul (Rom. i. 17; iii. 21 f; x. 8 ete.) is, — 
agreeably to his teaching concerning Oeds 6 Sixacov (cf. iii. 803. 
iv. 5),—righteousness which God bestows (on man), and, the 
meaning once fixed, ducaroc. Peo might be predicated even of 
believers themselves, 2 Cor. v. 21. Others, with Luther, understand 
the expression thus: the righteousness that avails before God 
(quae deo satisfacit, Fr. Rom. I. 47), dc. rapa 76 ed. The pos- 
sibility of this explanation lies in Sikavos mapa 76 ed Rom. ii. 13 
antithetic to dvcavoteai, and still more immediately in S:xavodcbas 
mapa T® Ved Gal. iii. 11, or évomiov rod Ocod Rom. iii. 20. Both 
expressions would be appropriate according to the nature of the 
duxavovc Oat in question. But the interpretation Seatot 6 Oeds Tov 
avOpwrov is the more rigorous, and in Rom. x. 8 a better antithesis 
is gained if dsc. Geod denotes righteousness which God imparts. 
Compare also Phil. iii. 97 é« Aeod Sixatocvyn. 


168 It is obvious from the preceding considerations that the decision between 
6th ed. the Subjective and the Objective Genitive rests in many passages not with 
the grammarian but with the exegete, and the latter in making it must 
give careful attention to parallel passages also. 
In Phil. iv. 7 eipyvy Ge0d can only mean the peace (of soul) that God 
gives, according to the custom of the apostles to wish their readers eipyvqv 
dd Ge0d; and this parallelism is more decisive here than Rom. y. | eipyvnv 
éyowev pds Tov Oedv (according to which peace with God must be the 
translation). Likewise in Col. ili. 15 eipyvy Xpwrod I take the Genitive 
to be Subjective, cf. Jno. xiv. 27. That dicavoovvy rictews (a single notion: 
Jaith-righteousness), Rom. iv. 13, signifies righteousness which farth brings 
with it, is manifest from the more frequent expression % dix. 7 €« mioTews 
Rom. ix. 80; x. 6. In Eph. iv. 18 dayAorpiwpevoe THs Lwns Tod Oeovd is 
God’s-life ; the life of Christian believers is so called as being a life com- 
municated, inwardly excited, by God. 
200 Whether the Genitive in the phrase edayyéAvoy Tod Xpiorod is to be 
taken as Subjective (the Gospel made known by Christ), or Objective 
(the Gospel concerning Christ), may be doubted. For my part_I prefer 
the latter, because in some passages we find the entire expression evayyéAtov 
70d Oeod rept Tod viod abrod (e.g. Rom. i. 3), of which the other is probably 
but an abridgment; cf. also evayyéAvov ris xéptros rod Oeod Acts xx, 24, 
and ehayyéduov tHs BactWelas trod Geod Matt. iv. 23; ix. 35. Mey. (on 


§ 30. GENITIVE. . 187 


Marki.1) declares himself now for one view, now for the other. Likewise 

in Col. ii. 18 expositors are not agreed whether in @pyoxeia dyyéAwv the 176 
Gen. is to be taken as Subjective or as Objective; the latter is preferable : ‘th el 
worship paid to angels, angel-worship ; cf. Euseb. H. E. 6, 41 Opyoxeta rov 
daipovwv (var.), Philo II. 259 Op. Oeav (7) rod Geod Aarpeta Plat. Apol. 23c.). 

In 1 Tim. iv. 1 daoviwy is undoubtedly a Subjective Genitive. But in 
Barricpav days, Heb. vi. 2, if the latter be considered as the principal 
noun (see below, 3. note 4), Barri. can only denote the object of the 
ddax7. In Rom. viii. 23 dzroAvtpwots tod cwparos, according to Paul’s 
teaching, appears rather to signify liberation of the body (from that dovAcia 

Ts PUopas 21) than liberation from the body. Likewise in Heb.i. 3; 2 Pet. 

i. 9 kaPapicpos TOv dyapridv might mean purification of sins (removal of 
sins, cf. Deut. xix. 13), just as one may say kaGapiCovrar ai dpapriae (cf. 
kaGaipev aia to remove by purification, Iliad 16, 667) ; but it is simpler 

to take tov duapriav as an Objective Genitive. In Rom. ii. 7 tropovy 
Eépyov dyaod, 1 Thess. i. 3 trropovy rhs éAmidos, is simply: perseverance in 
well-doing, perseverance in hope. Jas. ii. 4 is probably an indignant ques- 
tion: would ye not in this become judges of evil thoughts (your own) ? 


2. But the Genitive is likewise employed, b. to denote relations 
of dependence still more remote (cf. Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 108 
sq.; Stallb. Plat. Tim. p. 241 sq.; Bhdy. 160 ff.). In this way, by 
a kind of condensed expression, compound designations are formed 
which must be resolved variously, according to the relation of the 
ideas composing them. We distinguish, 

a. The Genitive which expresses relations entirely external (of 169 
place or of time) ; as, Matt. x. 5 od0s e@vav the way to the gentiles hie 
(Heb. ix. 8 cf. Gen. iii. 24. 7) 0805 Tod EvUXoU Tis Ywfis, Jer. ii. 18; 
Judith v. 14) 1, Jno. x. 7 @vpa trav rpoBatwr door to the sheep (Mey.), 
Matt. i. 11, 12 petorcecia BaBvrovos the carrying away to Babylon 
(Orph. 200 émi wdoov A€eivoio ad expeditionem in Axinum, 144 
vootos oixovo domum reditus, Kurip. Iph. T. 1066 ef. Schaef. Melet. 

p- 90; Seidler, Kurip. Electr. 161; Spohn, Isocr. Paneg. p. 2; Bttm. 
Soph. Philoct. p. 67),? Jno. vii. 85 4) Suarropa tév ‘EXdjvev the 
dispersion (the dispersed) among the Greeks, Mark viii. 27 cdma 
Kaicapetas ths Pinirrov towns about Caesarea Ph., situated on its 
territory (isa. xvii. 2),° Col. i. 20 aia tod cravpod blood of the 201 


1 But Matt. iv. 15 63ds @addoons undoubtedly way by the sea (of Tiberias). 

2 Vice versa Plat. Apol. 40c. petolnois ris Wuxfis To tTémov TOD evOevSe (away 
from this place). 

8 This finally comes back to the common topographical (Krii. 27) Genitive, as Jno. 
ii. 1 Kava tis Tadsdalas, Acts xxii. 3 Tapods THs KiAuclas, xiii. 13 f.; xxvii. 5; Luke 
iv. 26; cf. Xen. H.1, 2,12; D.S. 16,92; 17,63; Diog. L. 8,3; Arrian. Al. 2, 4,1, see 
Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 151; Ramshorn, lat. Gr. I. 167 —and this is simply the Genitive 
of belonging. . 


188 § 30. GENITIVE. 


cross i.e. blood shed on the cross, 1 Pet. i. 2 pavticpos aiparos 

sprinkling (purifying) with blood, 2 Cor. xi. 26 «ivdvvor motapav 
177 dangers on rivers (followed immediately by «ivéd. év wédet, ev Oa- 
ithe. Xdcon ete.), cf. Heliod. 2, 4, 65 «ivduvor Oaraccdr. 

Designations of time: Rom. ii. 5 (Zeph. il. 2) jyéoa dpyhs day 
of wrath, that is, day on which the punitive wrath of God will be 
manifested, Jude 6 xpiow peyadns nuépas Judgment (at) on the 
great day, Luke ii. 44 0605 tépas a day’s journey (distance tray- 
elled in a day, cf. Her. 4, 101; Ptol. 1, 11, 4), Heb. vi. 1 ory 
apyns tod Xpictov doyos primary Christian instruction. So also 
TEKUNPLA HuEpav TecoapaKkovTa Acts i. 8 according to Dt 

An external (local) relation also is expressed in d\aBaotpov 
pvpov Mark xiv. 38 and xepdauov vdaTos verse 13, cf. 1 Sam. x. 3 
ayyela aptwv, aoKos olvov, Soph. El. 758 yadxos o7rod0d (see Schaef. 
Longi Pastor. p. 386), Dion. H. IV. 2028 acd@artov kab ricons 
ayyeta, Theoph. Ch. 17; Diog. L. 6, 9; -7, 3; Lucian. asin. 37; 
fugit. 31; Diod. S. Vatic. 32,1. Under this head also comes Jno. 
xxi. 8 To diktuov TaY ixtiow (11 peordv ixPvwv), even ayérn xolpov 
Matt. vili. 30 and éxatov Barot éXaiov Luke xvi. 6. See on is 
Genitive of contents, Krii. 82. 


*Avdctacis vexpdv is nowhere in the N.T. equivalent to dvacracis éx 
vexpov, but denotes even in Rom. i. 4 the resurrection of the dead, absolutely 
and generically, although consummated only in a single individual. The 
doctrinal remarks of Philippi on this expression are mere trifling. 


8. The more remote imternal relations are especially expressed 
by the Genitive in the writings of John and Paul; as, Jno. v. 29 
170 avactacis Swijs, Kpicews, resurrection to life, resurrection to judg- 
bth ed. ment (Genitive of destination, Theodor. IV. 1140 tepwavuns yeupo- 
tovia to the priesthood, cf. Rom. vill. 86 Sept. wpo8atra cdhayis), 
Rom. v. 18 dccalwows Sons justification to life, Mark 1. 4 Barricpa 
petavoias baptism engaging to repentance, Rom. vii. 2 véwos tod 
avdpos law of the husband, i.e. which lays down the relation to the 
husband (cf. Dem. Mid. 390 a. 0 rs BAaBys vopos the law ef damage, 
frequently in the Sept. as in Lev. xiv. 2 0 vowos Tov NERDY, Vil. Le 
202 xv.32; Num. vi. 13, 21, see Fr. Rom. II. 9), vi. 6 c@pa tis duaprias 
body of sin, i.e body which belongs to sin, in which sin has tenancy 
and lordship (in which sin is carried into effect), very like c@pa 
THs capKos Col. i. 22 body in which carnality permanently dwells; 


1 Others, with less probability, take nuepav teooap. by itself: during forty days (Jacobs, 
Achill. Tat. p. 640 sq.) ; yet see below, No. 11, p, 207. 


§ 830. GENITIVE. 189 


Rom. vii. 24 cpa t0d Oavatov tovrou body of this death, i.e. which 
(in the way described vs. 7 sqq.) leads to death, vss. 5, 10, and 13. 
See, further, Tit. iii. 5. 

In Luke xi. 29 70 onpetov “Iwva is simply the sign once exhibited in Jonah 


(now to be repeated in the person of Christ). In the same way must 
Jude 11 be explained; but in Jno. xix. 14 rapackevn tod racxa does not 


mean the day of preparation for the Passover, but simply and naturally 178 
the resting-day of the Passover (the day of rest belonging to the Paschal ith ed. 


festival). In Heb. iii. 13 drdryn ris dpaprias is the Subjective Genitive, 
and duapria is to be taken as a personification (Rom. vii. 11 etc.). Yet 
in 2 Thess. ii. 10 darn ris dédukias is, deceit leading to unrighteousness. On 
Eph. iv. 18 see Mey., and on Jas. i. 17 de Wette. Further, in Eph. iii. 1; 
2 Tim. i. 8, Philem. 1, 9 décpr0s Xpicrod a prisoner of Christ means one 
whom Christ (the cause of Christ) has made and keeps a prisoner,’ cf. 
Wisd. xvii. 2; in Jas. ii. 5 of zrwxol Tod Koopov (if the reading is correct) 
the poor of the world signifies, they who in their position in the world are 
poor, poor therefore in worldly goods (though xdcpos itself does not on 
this account mean worldly goods). In Jno. vi. 45 didaxrot tod Oeod in- 
structed of God, that is by God, as in Matt. xxv. 54 of etAoynpévor Tod zatpds 
means Jlessed by the Father. In Eph. vi. 4, 11,13 xvptov and @eod are 
genitivi auctoris, as also tay ypapov Rom. xy. 4. Likewise Phil. i. 8 ev 
omddyxvors Xpicrod “I. is to be taken as the Subjective Genitive, though 


the more precise interpretation may be various. Cf. also Eph. vi. 4 and 171 
Mey. Lastly, the correct interpretation of 1 Pet. iii. 21 does not depend Sth ed 


so much on the Genitive ovveidjoews ayabys as on the meaning of érepwrnpa ; 
sponsio would accord perfectly with the context, but this rendering has 
not been lexically established either by de Wette or Huther. On Heb. 
ix. 11 see Bleek. In 1 Cor. i. 27 rod kdopov is the Subjective Genitive ; 
see Meyer. In 1 Cor.x.16 70 zornjpioy ris eddoyias means simply the cup 
of blessing, that is, over which the blessing is uttered; and in 21 zor. kupiov 
means cup of the Lord, where the closer relation of the Genitive is to be 
gathered from 16, just as in Col. ii. 11 that of Xpucrod is to be deduced 
from 14. Mey. gives a correct decision on Col. i. 14. In Acts xxii. 8 
vowov depends on k. axpiBeav. 


1 As in Philem. 13 decu0d tod edayy. means bonds which the Gospel has brought. 
Without reference to the parallel passages the above might be rendered: @ prisoner 
belonging to Christ. Others translate it, a prisoner for Christ’s sake. In the N. T. the 
Genitive is frequently so explained (Mtth. 851; Krii.31), yet always incorrectly. Heb. 
xiii. 13 toy dvecdicudy Xpicrod pépovtes is: bearing the reproach which Christ bore (and 
still bears). So also 2 Cor. i. 5 wepiooever TA TaPhuata Tod Xpirod eis Huds the sufferings 
which Christ had to endure, i.e. from the enemies of divine truth, come (anew) abundantly 
upon us ; for, the sufferings which believers endure (for the sake of divine truth) are 
essentially one with the sufferings of Christ, — only a continuation of them (cf. Phil. 
iii. 10). So also probably Col. i. 24 af OAtbers ToD Xpiorod and 2 Cor. iv. 10. On the 
first passage, which has been very variously explained, see Liicke, Progr. in loe. Col. 
i. 24 (GOtting. 1833, 4to.) p. 12sq., and Huther and Mey. in loc. 


208 


190 § 30, GENITIVE. 


Some refer the Genitive oikov in Heb. iii. 3 to rysjv, greater honor of 
the house (i.e. in, from, the house), etc. This construction, though not 
of itself inadmissible, is, for this writer, stiff, and clearly opposed to his 
design ; see Bleek. 

On the Genitive of apposition in particular, as réAeus Soddpwv Kal Topoppas 
2 Pet. ii. 6 (urbs Romae), onpetov reptropys Rom. iv. 11, see § 59,8, p. 531. 


_ 8. It was long usual to regard the Genitive of Relationship as a 
Genitive with an ellipsis; as, Mapia ’IaxwBov, "Iovéas ‘IaxwPouv, 
179 david 6 tod “Ieccai. But as the Genitive is the case of dependence, 
the. and as every relationship is a sort of dependence, there is no essen- 
tial notion wanting in such expressions (Hm. Ellips. p.120); only 
the thought which the Gen. expresses in a very general way (Plato, 
rep. 3, 408 b.) is left to be defined by the reader according to the 
facts in the case. Most frequently this Gen.implies son or daughter; 
as, Matt.iv. 21; Jno. vi. 71; xxi. 2,15; Acts xili.22. But pwarnp 
is to be understood in Luke xxiv. 10; Mark xv. 47; xvi. 1, ef. 
Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40 (Aelian. 16, 30 “Orupmids 1) ’AreEav- 
Spov sc. pntnp), TaTyp in Acts vil. 16 “Eypwp tod Suyéu (ef. Gen. 
xxxili. 19; similar in Steph. Byzant. under Jaidada: 7 todus amo 
Aatdarov tod Ixdpov), yuv7) in Matt. i. 6 €« tis tod Ovpiov and Jno. 
xix. 25 (see my RWB. II. 57 f.) cf. Aristoph. eccl. 46; Plin. epp. 
2, 20 Verania Pisonis; ddeddds perhaps, in Luke vi. 16; Actsi. 13 
"Tovéas ’IaxwBov, if the same apostle is mentioned in Jude 1 (cf. 
Alciphr. 2,2 Tipoxparns 6 Mntpodapov sc. adeddos). Such des- 
ignation in the circle of the Apostles might have arisen from the 
circumstance that James, the brother of Judas, was better known 
or more prominent than the father of Judas. See, in general, Bos, 
ellips. ed. Schaef. under the words; Boisson. Philostr. her. p. 307. 


In 1 Cor. i. 11 of KAdys are, accordingly, Chloe’s people, as in Rom. xvi. 10, 
11 of "ApicroBovAov, of Napxicoov. A more definite explanation must be 
supplied by th® facts of the case. Perhaps we should here understand, with 
most expositors, the members of the household of these persons. Others 
understand the slaves. To the original readers the expression was clear. 
Further, see Valcken. in loc. 
204 Note 1. It is not unusual, especially in Paul’s style, to find three Gen- 
itives connected together, and grammatically governed one by another. 
172 Frequently, however, one of them is employed instead of an adjective: 
6th ed. 2 Cor. iv. 4 rov pwricpov Tod ebayyeAiov THs So€ys Tod Xpeorod, Eph.i. 6 eis 
érawvov do€ns THS xaptros avrov, iv. 13 eis pérpov HAtKias Tov tANpwdpatos Tod 
Xpicrov (where the last two Genitives go together), 1.19; Rom. ii. 4; Col. 
i.'20; ii. 12,183; 1 Thess. i.8; 2 Thess.1.9; Rev. xviu.3; xxi, 6; Heb. 
v.12; 2 Pet. iii, 2, cf. Kriiger, Xen. A. 2, 5,38; Bornem. Xenoph. Apol. 


§ 80. GENITIVE. 191 


p. 44; Boisson. Babr. p. 116. In Rev. xiv. 10 (xix. 15) ofvos rod @vpod 
must be taken together : wine of wrath, burning wine, according to an O.T. 
figure. Four Genitives occur in Rey. xiv. 8 ék rod oivov Tov Oypod rijs 
mopvelas airys, Xvi. 19; xix. 15 (Judith ix.8; x.35 xiii. 18; Wisd. xiii. 5, 
etc.). On the other hand, in 2 Cor. iii. 6 dcaxdvous Kawis duabyKns ov ypap- 
patos GANG wvevparos the last two Genitives must, on account of verse 7, 
be considered as both dependent on the principal noun. In Rom. xi. 33 
"all the three Genitives, in the same way, refer to BdGos. 

Note 2. Sometimes, particularly in Paul’s epistles, the Genitive (when 
placed after) is separated from its governing noun by another word; as, 180 , 
Phil. ii. 10 Wa wav yovy Képwy érovpaviwy Kal éryeiwy Kal KaraxSovior ith ed. 
(Genitives subjoined in explanation of wav yovv), Rom. ix. 21 7) otk eye 
efovoiav 6 Kepapyeds Tov tyAov; 1 Tim. ili. 6 Wa py eis Kpia euréon Tov 
diaBdrov (probably for emphasis), 1 Thess. ii. 138; 1 Cor. viii. 7; Heb. 
viii. 5; Jno. xii. 11; 1 Pet. iii. 21. Otherwise still in Rev. vii. 17. On 
the other hand, in Eph. ii. 3 juev réxva dice dpyjs, a different position of 
the words was hardly possible, if an unsuitable stress (Huev picer réx. dpy.) 
was not to fall on dice. See,in general, Jacob, Lucian. Tox. p. 46; Ellendt, 
Arrian. Al. I. 241; Fr. Rom. II. 331. 

Note 3. Rarely two Genitives of different relations (particularly the 
one of a person, the other of a thing), mostly also separated from each 
other by position, are joined to a single noun (Krii. 33), e.g. Acts v. 32 
Huets €opev avtov (Xpicrov) pdptrupes tov pypdtwv rovtwv, 2 Cor. vy. 1 7 
eriyelos Nav oikia Tov oxyvous, Phil. ii. 30 76 tpudv torépnua tis Aeroupytas, 
2 Pet. ili. 2 THs Tov adroordAwy tudv évrodAjs Tod Kupiov, [ Matt. xxvi. 28 76 
ainda pov THs SiaSyKys,] Heb. xiii. 7, cf. Her. 6, 2 ryv “Iovev rhv nyepovinv 
Tov mpos Aapetov mroAguov, Thue. 3, 12 tiv éxetvov péeAAnow Tov cis HUGs Sewdv, 
6, 18 4 Nixitov trav Adywv axpaypoovvyn, Plat. legg. 3, 690 b. tiv Tod vopov 
Exovrwv dpxyv, rep. 1, 829 b. ras rv oiketwy zpornAakicets TOU yypws, Diog. 
L. 3, 37 and very strained Plat. Apol. 40 c. weroiknots THs Wuyns TOU Toro 
tov évOévde, see Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 329; ad legg. p. 84.sq.; Lob. Soph. Aj. 
p. 219; Bttm. Demosth. Mid. p. 17, and Soph. Philoctet. v. 751; Fritzsche, 
quaest. Lucian. p. 111 sq.; Bhdy. 162; Mtth. 864 (Kritz, Sallust. II. 170). 

To this head we may also refer 1 Pet. ili. 21 capkds ardOects pizov the 
flesh’s putting away of filth (oop§ dmoriPerau pirov), unless there be here 
a transposition. 

In a different way two Genitives are connected together in Jno. vi. 1 
9 Odrdacoa tHs Tadiraias rs TyBepuddos the Sea of Galilee, of Tiberias. 205 
Under the last name alone it occurs the second time in Jno. xxi. 1. Per- 
haps for the sake of foreign readers John annexed the more definite to 
the more general designation (cf. Pausan. 5, 7,3) that they might determine 
the locality more certainly. Beza in loc. takes a different view. Kiihndl’s 
suspicion, that the words rjs TB. are a gloss, is hasty. The explanation 173 
of Paulus, however, — setting sail from Tiberias —if not at variance with Sth ed 


192 § 30. GENITIVE. : 


classic prose, is opposed to the style of the N. T. (cf. Bornem. Acta p. 149), 
which, in such circumstances, ‘prefers to the simple case the more vivid 
mode of expression by means of the preposition. Tvf. cannot be made to 
depend on the dzo in arndOev. 

Note 4. The Genitive, when placed before the governing noun, either a. 
belongs to two nouns at the same time, as in Acts iii. 7 airot ai Baoeas Kat 
Ta opupd, Jno. xi. 48, or b. is emphatic (Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 118; 
Mdy. 13), as e.g. in 1 Cor. ili. 9 Geod yap éxpev ovvepyot, Geod yedpytov, 
Oeod oikodouyn éeore, Acts xill. 23 tovrov (Aavid) 6 eds ard Tod orépparos ... 

181 jyaye cwrjpa ‘Inooty, Jas. i. 26 ei tis... TOUTOV paraLos 7 Opyoxeia, iii. 3 ; 

tthe, Heb. x. 36; Eph. ii. 8. The emphasis is not unfrequently founded in an 
expressed antithesis: Phil. ii. 25 tov cvatparwryy pov, bp@v de aardaroXov 
kat Nerovpyov THs xpelas prov, Matt. i. 18; Heb. vii. 12, 1 Pet. ii. 21; 
Eph. ii. 10; vi. 9; Gal. iii. 15; iv. 28; 1 Cor vi.15; Rom. iii. 29; xiii. 4. 
The Genitive, however, for the most part contains the principal notion : 
Rom. xi. 13 eGvav aroaroXos apostle of the Gentiles, 1 Tim. vi. 17 éxi zAovrou 
ddnAdtyTe upon riches which are perishable, Tit. i.7; Heb. vi. 16; 2 Pet. 
ii. 14. That the placing of the Genitive before the governing noun belongs 
to the peculiarities of diction of a particular author (Gersdorf 296 ff), 
though not in itself impossible (since emphatic combinations are weakened 
by individual writers), at least cannot be shown to be probable. Cf. more- 
over, Poppo, Thue. III. I. 243. Heb. vi. 2 is a difficult passage ; Bamrucpav 
dudayns (depending on OeuéAvov) certainly belong together, and didayys 
cannot be torn away so strangely and regarded as the governing noun to 
all four Genitives, as Ebrard still maintains. But the question is, whether 
we should here admit a transposition for dday7s Barticpay, as most later 
expositors do. Such a transposition, however, would be at variance with 
the whole structure of the verse; and if Barricpol days is translated 
doctrinal baptisms, baptisms in connection with instruction, to distinguish 
them from the legal baptisms (lustrations) of Judaism, this appellation is 
confirmed as distinctively Christian by Matt. xxviii. 19 Barricavres atrovs 

. uddeKovres adrovs. Ebrard’s objection, that Christian baptism is dis- 
tinguished from mere lustrations, not by instruction, but by the forgiveness 
of sins and regeneration, amounts to nothing, for Matt. xxviii. says nothing 
about the forgiveness of sins. As regards the use of the word Pamrripés, 
and in the Plural too, what Tholuck has already remarked may be used 
also in support of the above explanation. 

206 Note 5. Kiihnél and others consider wepé with the Ace. in | Mark iv. 19 
ai wept Ta Aowra eriHviar as a circumlocution for the Genitive. But, 
though Mark might have written af trav Acwrdv ér., yet the former 
expression is not only more definite, but wept obviously retains its force : 
cupiditates, quae circa reliqua (rel. res) versantur (Heliod. 1, 23, 45 
ériOupia mept tiv Xapixdeav, Aristot. rhet. 2, 12 at repi 76 cdma éxifvpiar), 
just as (with the Gen.) in Jno. xy. 22. It is another thing when, in 


§ 30. GENITIVE. 193 


Greek authors, wept with the Acc. is used as a circumlocution for the 474 
Genitive of an object to which a certain quality is ascribed, e.g. Diod. S. 6th ed 
11, 89:4 wept 70 iepdy dpyatdrns, and again 70 wept Tovs Kparnpas idiwma (cf. 
- Schaef. Julian. p. VI. and Dion. comp. p. 23). With more reason might 
it be said that in 1 Cor. vii. 37 éfovaia zept rod idiov PeAjparos this prepo- 
sition is used with the Gen. as a circumlocution for the Genitive, because 
the Genitive alone might also have been employed ; but power over (with 
respect to) his own will, is at all events the more definite and full expression. 
Expositors find a similar circumlocution for the Gen. by means of azo and 
éx in Acts xxiii. 21 ri dd cot érayyediav, 2 Cor. vill. 7 TH €& tpav ayarn. 
This, however, is literally amor qui-a vodis proficiscitur, promissio a te 182 
profecta, and is more precise than rj ipov dydry, which might also mean ‘th ad. 
amor in vos. So Thue. 2, 92 9 dd rav ’A@nvaiwy BorxfPaa, Dion. H. IV. 
2235 modiv éx trav rapdvtwv Kwycas eeov, Plato, rep. 2,363 a. ras dx airijs 
evooxyzjoeis, Demosth. pac. 24 b.; Polyaen. 5,11; D.S.1,83.9,39; Exe. 
Vat. p.117; Lucian. conscr. hist. 40; ef. Jacobs, Athen. 321 sq. and Anthol. 
pal. I.1, 159; Schaef. Soph. Aj. p. 228; Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 329. Also 
Rom. xi. 27 7 zap’ éod dia0j«n must be explained in the same way. Cf. 
Xen. C. 5, 5, 13; Isocr. Demon. p. 18; Arrian. Al. 5, 18, 10 (Fr. in loc. 
and Schoem. ad Isaeum p.193). On Jno.i. 14 see Liicke. None of these 
passages contains an unmeaning circumlocution. And in 1 Cor. ii. 12 ov 
TO Tvebua TOV KOT OV eAdBopev, GAAA TO TVEDpa TO eK Geod, the apostle 
has of set purpose employed in the parallel 76 é« Geod (not 7d mv. Geov or 76 
Geot). No tolerably attentive reader will admit the alleged circumlocution 
for the Gen. by means of év (see Koppe, Eph. p. 60), in proof of which 
1 Cor. ii. 7; Eph. ii. 21; Tit. iii. 5; 2 Pet. ii. 7 are adduced. Nor does 
Kara constitute a mere circumlocution for the Genitive in the examples 
usually quoted. In Rom. ix. 11 7 car’ éxAoyjv zpdbecrs means the purpose 
according to, in consequence of, election. In Rom. xi. 21 of xara diow 
kAddot are the branches according to nature i.e. the natural branches. So 
Heb. xi. 7 4 kata wiotw dixacocvvn. In Heb. ix. 19, too, Kara tov voor, 
if referred to raoys éevroAys, would not be put for rod .vopov, as Bleek per- 
ceived. Yet, see above, § 22,7. More pertinent examples are found in 
Greek writers; as, Diod. $.1, 65 4 kara ri dpyiw ardbects the abdication 
of the government (literally, as regards the government), 4,13; Exc. Vat. 
p- 103; Arrian. Al. 1, 18, 12; Mtth. 866. On eiayy. cara Maré. etc. see 207 
Fr. (cf. instances in the nova biblioth. Lubec. II. 105 sq.). It is quite 
erroneous to take ra eis Xpiordv rabypara 1 Pet. i.11 for ra Xprorod 
maOnpara (v. 1). It means (similar to wept ris eis ids xapiros vs. 10) 
the sufferings (destined) for Christ. 

It is a different matter, when a Genitive dependent on a noun is ren- 
dered by means of a preposition because the (corresponding) ver) prefers 
this construction ; as, kowwvia Syav eis rd ebayyédov Phil. i. 5 cf.iv. 10. 


12 Cor. ix. 2 6 & buav Gros hpébice Tovs wAclovas is referable to attraction. 
25 


194 § 830. GENITIVE. 


So probably also émepwrnpa eis Oedv (after God) 1 Pet. iii. 21, cf. 2 Sam. 


Xl. 7 éepwrav els Oedv. 


175 4. The same sort of direct dependence occurs in the connection 
ithel. of the Genitive with verbal adjectives and participles whose signi- 

fication is not such that they (the verbs from which they come) 

could regularly govern the Genitive (2 Pet. ii. 14 werrods povyaribos, 

Matt. x. 10 d&os rhs tpodhs, Heb. iii. 1 wArrjcews péToxor etc. see 

No. 8; Eph. ii. 12 Eévoe tev SvaPynKav etc.) ; as, 1 Cor. ii. 13 Aoyou 

OudakTot TvevpaTtos ayiov, see above, p. 189, 2 Pet. ii. 14 xapdcav 

yeyunvacpevnv mreoveEias cf. Iliad. 5, 6 AXeXoupévos @Keavoto, Soph. 
183 Aj. 807 dwtos nratnuévn, 1353 hirtwv wKwpevos, and with 1 Cor. 
ith ed. especially Soph. El. 344 xelvns dvdaxta, with 2 Pet. Philostr. her. 
2, 15 Gararrns odTw yeyupvacpévot, 3, 1 Néotopa moréuwv ToAd@v 
yeyupvacpevorv, 10, 1 codias 7dn yeyupvacpévor, see Boisson. Philostr. 
her. p. 451. We resolve all these Genitives by a preposition : 
taught of (by) the Holy Spirit, bathed in the ocean, inured to the 
sea, etc. And perhaps in the simple language of antiquity the 
Genitive in such constructions was regarded as the whence case ; 
see Hartung, 8. 17. According to this view the two following 
passages also are easily explained: Heb. ili. 12 capdia rrovnpa ame 
otlas a heart evil (with respect to) unbelief (where amtoria is that 
which originates the zovnpia; substantively wovnpia amiotias the 
Genitive (of apposition) would seem quite natural ; similarly Wisd. 
XViii. 3 HAvov 4BAaABH piroriuou Eevitetas wapéoyes, see Monk, Hurip. 
Alcest. 751; Mtth. 811, 818. Secondly, Jas. i. 13 asre(pactos Kaxar, 
which most expositors render: wntempted (that cannot be tempted) 
by evil (ef. Soph. Antig. 847 dkdavtos didwv, Aeschyl. Theb..875 
kax@v atpvpoves Schwenck, Aeschyl. Eumen. 96); Schulthess, 
however, translates it: tmexpertenced in evil. ‘The parallelism 
with wepafeo does not favor the last interpretation. ‘The active 
acceptation in the Aethiopic version, not tempting to evil, is to be 
rejected more on the ground that the rewpager dé avtos ovdéva fol- 
lowing would be tautological (for the apostle, as the 6é shows, 
must intend to say something different from azrefp.), and also that 
ameip. does not occur in the active sense, than, as Schulth. thinks, 
on account of the Genitive caxév.! The Genitive has great latitude 
of import, at least in the poets and in such writers as approach a 
poetic or rhetorical diction. ”Avre(p. kaxav might denote not temp- 
ting in respect to evil, just as well as in Soph. Aj. 1405 Xoutpav 


20 


co 


1 On the active and passive acceptation of verbals see Wer, Soph. Antig. I. 162. 


§ 30. GENITIVE. 195 


orlwv érixatpos suitable for holy washings, or in Her. 1, 196 zrapOévor 
yauov wpata ripe for marriage. 

Paul’s expression kAyrot “Iycod Xpiorod Rom. i. 6 should not be brought 
under this rule, as is still done by Thiersch. It means, according to the 
apostle’s view of kAyos elsewhere, Christ’s called, i.e. called (by God) who 
are Christ's, belong to Christ. On the other hand, we may refer to this 
head dpotds twos Jno. viii. 55 (this adj. regularly governs the Dat. [which 
case, indeed, even in the passage just mentioned Lchm. placed in the text, 
but against the balance of authorities and against Cod. Sin. also }) Mtth. 873 ; 176 
Schneider, Plat. civ. II. 104; III. 46 (on similis aliew‘us and the like, 6th ed. 
see Zumpt, lat. Gr. S. 365 f.), and éyy’s with the Gen. Jno. xi. 18; Rom. 

x. 8; xiii. 11; Heb. vi. 8; viii. 15, etc., the usual construction here, along 
with which, however, éyyv’s tu occurs ; see Bleek, Hebr. II. I. 209; Mtth. 
812. Even adjectives compounded with ovv are sometimes followed by 184 
the Genitive ; as, cvppopdos THs «ikovos Rom. vill. 29 (Mtth. 864). “th ed. 


5. Most closely related to the simple Genitive of dependence 
after substantives and in reality only an expansion of that Genitive 
into a clause, is the very common eivad or yivecOai twos. This 
construction has a still more diversified use in Greek prose (Kru. 
28 f.; Mdv. 57 f.; Ast, Lexic. Platon. I. 621), than in the N. T.; 
and was formerly explained by assuming that a preposition or a 
substantive was understood. 

In the N. T. may be distinguished, 

a. The Genitive of the whole, of the class (Plur.) and of the 
sphere (Sing.) to which one belongs, 1 Tim. i. 20 @p éotiv ‘Tyevaios 
of whom ts (to whom belongs) Hym., 2 Tim. i. 15; Acts xxiii. 6 
(1 Mace. ii. 18; Plato, Protag. 342e.; Xen. A. 1, 2, 3), 1 Thess. 
v. 5, 8 ov« éopev vuKTos ovSE cKOTOUS ... Hels Huepas dvTes belonging 
to the night, to the day, Acts ix. 2. 

b. The Genitive of the ruler, master, possessor, etc., Matt. xxii. 
28 tivos Tov érta Eotar yur); 1 Cor. iii. 21 wavta ipav éotiw 
(Xen. A. 2,1, 4; Ptol. 1, 8, 1), vi. 19 od« éoré éautay ye are not 
your own — do not belong to yourselves, 2 Cor. iv. T ta 7) brepBorr 
Ths Suvdpews 1) TOD Ocod Kal pi) EE juov that... may be God’s and 
not of us, x. 7 Xpictovd eivar, Rom. viii. 9 (similarly 1 Cor. i. 12 of 
heads of parties éy® eius Ilavdov, cf. Diog. L. 6, 82). Close to 209 
this comes Acts i. T ody tuav ote yvovar etc. it does not belong to 
you —tt is not in your power to know (Plato, Gorg. 500 a.; Xen. 
Oec. 1, 2), Mark xii. 7 judy éoras ) KAnpovowia (Matt. v. 3), 1 Pet. 
ili. 3, further Heb. v. 14 terelwy éotiv 1) cteped tpody belongs to 
(is for) mature persons, etc. 


185 


Tth ed, 


177 
6th ed. 


196 § 30. GENITIVE. 


c. The Genitive of a quality in which one participates (sing. 
abstract), in diversified applications, 1 Cor. xiv. 83 ov« éotw dxa- 
taotacias 0 Geos, Heb. x. 39 ayets ovK eopev Umoctodis ... ada 
miatews etc. (Plato, apol. 28 a.). Likewise the concrete Gen. Acts 
ix. 2 twas tis 6500 dvras, particularly the Genitive of age, Mark — 
v. 42 iv érov dHdexa, Luke ii. 42; iii. 23; Acts iv. 22; Tob. xiv. 7, 
11; Plato, legg. 4,721 a. In these passages the subject is a person, 
but in the following it isa thing: Heb. xii. 11 waca mawéela od 
doxel yapas eivat is not (matter) ef joy (this, however, might be 
referred also to a.), 2 Pet. i. 20 raca rpodnteta ypadijs idtas émidv- 
cews ov yiwetat. Moreover, this construction of efué, when persons 
are the subject, is sometimes made more animated, in Oriental 
style, by the insertion of uios or réxvov; cf. 1 Thess. v. 5 dyets viol 
dwros é€oTe Kal viol Hépas.} 

The same relations are expressed by the Genitive when the verb 
eivau is omitted, Phil. iii. 5 éyo ... duds Beviapiv. 

6. The Genitive, as the clearly defined case of departure, motion 
whence, appears, too, in the diction of the N. T., joined to verbs 
(and adjectives), with a diversity of application natural to this rela- 
tion. (This diversity, however, is more copious in Greek prose, and 
in the N. 'T. the Gen. is frequently strengthened by prepositions.) 
As separation from is related to proceeding from, and as that 
which departs and is separated may often be conceived as a part 
of the remaining whole, the Genitive, because the case of proceed- 
ing from, is also naturally the case of separation and of partition. 
The former, the Genitive of separation and removal, as the more 
limited, we shall illustrate first. 

As words which express the idea of separation or removal are 
usually construed with the Genitive by the Greeks even in prose,— 
e.g. édevOepody Tivos to free from something, K@Avew, vToxywpely, 
Tavew, SiapéepEly, VITEPELY TLVOS, SCC Mtth. 829 ff, 845; Bhdy. 179f. 
(although in such circumstances suitable prepositions are pretty 
frequently inserted),—so in the N. T. also the following verbs 
are construed with the Genitive: weracrabjvat Luke xvi. 4, aoroxetp 
1 Tim. i. 6, wadvecOar 1 Pet. iv. 1, eodvew Acts xxvil. 43 (cf. Xen. 
C. 2, 4,23; Anab. 1, 6,2; Pol. 2, 52, 8 a.), dsadépew Matt. x. 31; 


“1 Cor. xv. 41 ete. (Xen. C. 8, 2, 21, ef. Krii. Dion. H. p. 462), dzro- 


210 


otepeicOar 1 Tim. vi. 5,2 also dorepety to be behind one 2 Cor. xi. 5; 


1 We Germans also say both du bist des Todes and du bist ein Kind des Todes. But 
this does not prove that the former expression is elliptical (A winoel ad Heb. x. 39). 
2 Lachm., on the authority of good Codd., has adopted in Acts xix. 27... uéAAew re 


¥ 


§ 30. GENITIVE. | 197 


xii. 11, see Bleek on Heb. iv. 1 and f€évo. rHv dvaOnxav Eph. ii. 12. 

The interposition of prepositions, however, predominates : 

a. With verbs of disjouning, freeing, and being free, invariably 
(Mtth. 665; Bhdy. 181); as, ywpifew amo Rom. viii. 85; 1 Cor. 
vii. 10; Heb. vii. 26 (Plat. Phaed. 67 ¢., but Polyb. 5, 111, 2); 
Avew awd Luke xiii. 16; 1 Cor. vii. 27; €XevOepovv azo Rom. vi. 18, 
22; viii. 2,21 (Thue. 2, 71, also with é« Mtth. 830) ; pvecOar azo 
Matt. vi. 13 (2 Sam. xix. 9; Ps. xvi. 13 f.), with é« Luke i. 74; 
Rom. vii. 24, etc., Exod. vi. 6; Job xxxiii. 30; Ps. lxviiil. 15; cofew 
amo Rom. v. 9 (Ps. Ixviii. 15), and more frequently with é«, as in 
Jas. v. 20; Heb.v.7 (2 Sam. xxii. 8f.; 1 Kings xix. 17) ; AuTpodv 
amo Tit. ii. 14; Ps. exviii. 134 (but 2X. twos Fabric. Pseudepigr. 
I. 710); xadapifev avo 1 Jno.i. T; 2 Cor. vii. 1; Heb. ix. 14, 
accordingly xafapds amé Acts xx. 26, cf. Tob. ii. 14; Demosth. 
Neaer. 528 c. (with é« Appian. Syr. 59) and a@aos amd (ya *ps) 
Matt. xxvii. 24, cf. Krebs, observ. 73; Gen. xxiv. 41; Num. v.19, 
31, with Dat. Josh. ii. 17, 19 f.; similarly Aovew amo (concisely 
for by washing cleanse from) Acts xvi. 83; Rev. i. 5. 

b. Where the construction with the Genitive alone is also used ; 
as, avatravecOa x Tov KoTTMV Rev. xiv. 13, mavodto tiv yAoocav 


amo kaxov 1 Pet. iii. 10 (sth. ix. 16; Soph. Electr. 987; Thuc. 7, 186 


73) 5 votepety amo Heb. xii. 15 is probably a pregnant construction. 


The notion of separation and removal lies at the basis also of the Hel- 


7th od. 


lenistic construction kpvmrew (7) azo twos Luke xix. 42 (for which classic 178 


authors use xpvrrew twa. TL) ; it is properly a constructio praegnans (cf. Sept. th ed. 


Gen. iv. 14; xviii. 17; 1 Sam. iii. 18, etc.). To verbs of remaining behind 
anything (torepety twos) may be referred 2 Pet. ili. 9 od Ppadiver 6 Ki’iptos 
ms erayyeAias (ov Bpad’s éori tis éxayyeXias), cf. torépow rHs Bonbeias 
Diod. S. 138, 110. Even the Syriac has joined érayy. with Spa. 

T. The Genitive of proceeding from and of derivation occurs in 
prose in its simplest form in dpyouat twos I begin from (with) some- 
thing (Hartung, 14), déyoual tevos T receive from somebody (Hm. 
Vig. 877), déopai twos I bee of some one (Mtth. 834), axovw twos I 
hear from somebody ; then yevouat, écOiw twos (e.g. dptov, wéduTos ) I 
taste, eat, of something, dvivnui twos I derive advantage, enjoyment, 
_ from something ; finally dept twos, \auBavw twos I give, take, of 
something; Hm. Opuse. I. 178. The Genitive denotes in all these 
cases the object out of which hearing, eating, giving etc. comes ; 


kal KaOoupeioOa: THs weyaretdtnTos avrhs. Still I agree with Mey. in thinking 
this reading (which most probably is an error of the transcribers, see Bengel) too weak 
for the style of the passage. 


Z11 


198 | § 80, GENITIVE. 


from which that proceeds which is eaten, tasted, given, etc.; and, 
in the last expressions, indicates the mass, the whole, of which a 
part is enjoyed, given, ete. Consequently these Genitives may be 
regarded also as Genitivi partitivi; for when the whole, or the ob- 
ject simply, is meant, the strict Object-case, the Accusative, is used. 
In the diction of the N.'T. the Genitive, in many of those construc- 
tions, is strengthened by a preposition. As respects details we notice, 
a. Aéouat has without exception the Genitive of the person (Matt. 
ix. 88; Luke v. 12; viii. 28; Acts viii. 22, etc.), the object of re- 
quest being subjoined in the Acc.; as, 2 Cor. vili. 4 deduevos Auav 
Tv yapw etc. (Weber, Demosth. p. 163). 
b. Of verbs of giving with the Genitive we have only one instance, 
Rey. ii. 17 dec adT@ Tod pavva (where some Codd. have 8. a. da- 
yety amo Tov pw.asa correction ).! - On the other hand,in Rom. i. 11; 
1 Thess. ii. 8 the apostle could not have written peradidovar yapi- 
opatos or evayyediov (Mtth. 798), as in the first passage a partic- 
ular charisma as a whole (in fact he says yapicpd tv) is meant; 
and in the second, the Gospel as something indivisible. Paul did 
not purpose to communicate a portion of (from) a spiritual gift, 
or a portion of (from) the Gospel. | 
c. Verbs of enjoying or partaking : mpostapuBavecOa tpodjs Acts 
xxvii. 36, petarauBavew tpophs Acts 11. 46; xxvii. 33 f., yever@as 
tod Seirvov Luke xiv. 24 (figuratively Heb. vi. 4 yevecOas tis Swpeds 
187 7. ézovpaviov, yevecOar Oavatov Matt. xvi. 28; Luke ix. 27; Heb. ii. 
ithe. 9 etc.), and with Gen. of pers. Philem. 20 éyo cov dvaiuny ev xupto 
(cf. also Odyss. 19, 68), Rom. xv. 24 éav tpav... eumrna@d. 
But yevecOar governs also the Acc.: Jno. il. 9 éyevoato 70 tdwp, 
179 Heb. vi. 52 (as frequently in Hebraizing Greek, Job. xii. 11; Sirach 
oth el. Sxxvi. 24; Tob. vii.11; but probably never in Greek authors) .? 


1 This very passage clearly shows the distinction between the Genitive and the Acc., 
for kal Sécw Whpov Aevehy follows; cf. Heliod. 2, 23, 100 érepidpouv 6 pev tov HSaros, 
6 5€ kad ofvor. 

2 Bengel, on Heb. vi. 4, appears to trifle in attempting to make a distinction in this 
passage between yeveo@at with the Gen. and with the Acc. 

3 In the sense of eating up, consuming, dayeiv and éobiew have regularly the Ace. 
(Matt. xii. 4; Rev. x. 10): ef., for distinction, 1 Cor. ix. 7. They also take the Ace. 
when one’s food in general, merely, is described, — of which he ordinarily makes use, 
which he lives upon; e.g. Mark i. 6 jv *Iwdvyns ... eoOiwy axpidas Kal méedt Bypiov, 
Rom. xiv. 21.; Matt. xv. 2; 1 Cor. viii. 7; x. 3f. (Jno. vi. 58), cf. Diog. L. 6, 45. It 
may be stated generally, that éo@tew 7: would in no passage be found to be entirely without 
justification (cf. even 2 Thess. iii. 12) and thus the absence of éo6tew tids (together with 
amé or x twos) would cease to be strange. Luke xv. 16 amd trav Keparlwy dy Hoo ot 
xXoipa is probably an attraction. Besides, we find éo@lew, mivew ri regularly in the 
Sept. also; only in Num. xx. 19 €ay rou bdaTds gov Tiwmey OCCUrs. 


§ 30. GENITIVE. 199 


Verbs of eating of as well as giving and taking of are, moreover, 212 
in the N. T. invariably joined to their nouns by prepositions : 

a) By amo; as, Luke xxiv. 42 érédwxay avT@ ... amo pwedioolov 
knpiov, xx. 10; Matt. xv. 27 ra Kuvapia éoOie aro Tov Yiylwy TOY 
Tmavdiov (cf. ya>bax and dayety avo Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 706), 
Luke xxii. 18 ov p2) wriw aro ToD yevrvnpmatos THs apurtrédov, cf. Jer. 

li. (xxviil.) 7, Acts ii. 17 éxyed ao T. mvevparos wou (LXX.), v. 2 
Kal évorpicato amo THs TiuAs, JNO. Xxi. 10 e€véyxate aro TOY ofa- 
piov, Mark xii. 2 va ... XdBN aro TOD KapTrOv TOU apTEAOVOS. 

b) By é«; as, 1 Cor. xi. 28 é« Tod aptou éoOtéTw, 1x. T (2 Sam. 

xi.8; 2 Kings iv. 40; Sir. xi.17; Judith xii. 2); Jno. iv. 14 
Os ay min €« Tod datos! Vi. 50 6 dptos ... wa Tis €E a’Tod dayn, 
1 Jno. iv. 13 é« tod mrvevpatos avTod Sédwxev juiv. But we must 
not refer to this head Heb. xiii. 10 dayetv é« @vcvactnplov, as if it 
were equivalent to é« O@vaias; for @vcvacr. means altar. To eat 
of the altar is simply equivalent to, of the sacrifice (offered on the 
altar). Probably there is no instance of éc@/ew azro or éx in classic 
Greek ; but.dzroXavew azé Tivos is akin to it, Plat. rep. 3, 395 ¢.; 
10, 606 b.; Apol. 31 b. 

c) Of verbs of perceiving, axovw is construed with the Genitive 
of the person (to hear from—out of—one), to hear one; as, Matt. 
xvii. 5; Mark vii. 14; Luke ii. 46; Jno. iii. 29; ix. 31; Rev. vi.1,8; 
Rom. x. 142— (the object is expressed in the Acc., Acts i. 4 Hv Hxov- 
carté ov, Lucian. dial. deor. 20,13). Yet we find likewise dxovew 188 
ve ao in 1 Jno. i. 5, é« in 2 Cor. xii. 6 (also Odyss. 15, 374), rapa ith el. 
in Acts x. 22, where in classic Greek the Gen. alone would have 
been sufficient. A Genitive of the thing occurs with dxovw in 
Jno. v. 25; Heb. iv. 7 ax. dovijs, Luke xv. 25 jxovoe cupdovias 
kat yopov, Mark xiv. 64 nKovcate Tis Bracdnpuias, 1 Mace. x. 34; 
Bar. iii. 4 (Lucian. Hale. 2; gall. 10; Xen.C. 6, 2,13, ete.). On the 180 
other hand, the Accusative follows in Luke y. 1 dxovew tov Xéyov ae 
tT. Geod, Jno. vill. 40 Tv adjOevar, HvejKovea Tapa T. Oeov etc. In~ - 
the last passages the object is referred to as a connected whole, and ; 
the hearing meant is intellectual; while in the previous passages 

* 


1 Otherwise in 1 Cor. x. 4 &mvov é« mvevyarinis axorovbovons mérpas, where Flatt’s 
explanation is a failure. 

2 Others, Riick. and Fr., take the Genitive of the person here of otk Heoveay thus: of 
whom (de quo) they have not heard (as axovew tivds is used also in Iliad. 24,490). This 
does not appear to me probable (the construction in this sense is entirely poetical), 
much less necessary: one hears Christ when one hears the Gospel in which he speaks ; 
and thus a«ovew Xpiordy Eph. iv. 21 is said of those who have not heard Christ in person. 
Philippi on the passage is superficial. 


200 § 80. GENITIVE. 


the object is primarily certain sounds only, or words received by 
the bodily ear. Cf. Rost 532 f, 


The Genitive with ruyxdvew (érirvyydvew) which invariably occurs in 
the N. T. (on the Acc. see Hm. Vig. 762; Bhdy.176),' as in Luke xx. 35; 
Acts xxiv. 3; xxvii. 3, etc., is perhaps in its origin to be explained by the 
preceding rule; yet we find it also where the whole object is meant. In 
the same way the earlier Greek authors almost always construe xAypovopely 
(inherit, also participate in) with the Genitive (Kypke II. 381), but the 
later and the N.'T. writers connect with it the Accusative of the thing ; 
as, Matt. v. 4; xix. 29; Gal. v. 21 (Polyb. 15, 22, 3) see Fischer-Well. 
III. I. 368; Lob. Phryn. 129; Mtth. 802. 

Aayxévew has the Accusative in Acts i. 17; 2 Pet. i. 1 iodtyov nity 
Aaxotor rictw (where ziorts does not mean faith in an ideal sense, the faith 
in which every Christian gets a share by his conversion, but the subjective 
faith of these Christians) Mtth. 801. But in Lukei. 9 the Gen. is used (to 
obtain by lot) ; cf. Brunck, Soph. Electr. 864; Jacobs, Anthol. pal. III. 803. 


8. In the foregoing examples we already perceive that the notion 
of proceeding from something slides over into that of participation 
in something; but the partitive import of the Genitive is still more 
plainly disclosed in such combinations as petéyeww Tivos, mAnpouv 
Twos, Guyyavew twos. With the Genitive are construed, . 

a. Words that express the notion of having a share, partaking, 
wanting (wishing to partake) Mtth. 797; as, cocvwvety Heb. ii. 14, 
xo.wwves 1 Cor. x.18; 1 Pet. v. 1, cvyxowwrds Rom. xi. 17, weréyverv 
1 Cor. ix. 12; x. 21; Heb. v. 13, werarapBavery Heb. vi. 7; xii. 10, 
eétoyos Heb. iii. 1, also ypyfew? Matt. vi. 82; 2 Cor. iii. 1, ete., 
mposdeic Oar Acts xvii. 25. But xowwvetv also takes— and in the 

189 N. T. more commonly — the Dat. of the thing ; as, 1 Tim. v. 22 yu» 
ith el. Kovvever dpaptiaws adrdotpias, Rom. xv. 27; 1 Pet.iv.13; 2 Jno. 11 
214 (Wisd. vi. 23), and in a transitive acceptation eds, Phil. iv. 15 ovde- 
pia pot exkrnola ekowwwvneer els Nyor Sogews. Cf. Plat. rep.5,453b. 
Suvatiy pious 1) Ojreva TH TOD appevos yévous Kowovioat eis aTavTa 
Ta épya. Act. Apocr. p. 91. “The Dat. of the thing with xowavety 
and peréyew sometimes occurs in Greek authors (Thue. 2, 16 ; 
Demosth. cor. c. 18) Poppo, Thue. III. I. 77; and, in respect to 
xowevev, is to be explained probably from the notion of community 
implied in the word (1 Tim., as above, cannot be resolved into 


1 But according to good authorities [Sin. also] émtuyxdvew has the Acc. in Rom. 
xi. 7; see Fr. 

2 Though in Luke xi. 8 several Codd. have 8cov xph¢er, neither from this, nor from 
the construction xph¢ew tt (Mith. 834), should it be concluded, as is done by Kiéihndl, 
that xp. is construed with the Acc. also (in the sense of desiring, demanding). 


—ss 


§ 30. GENITIVE. 201 


pndév cot Kal Tals auaptiais addoTp. Kowwov ~otw). Further, 181 
peréyxew is once construed with the interposition of é«, 1 Cor. x. 17 ‘th ed 
€x TOU évos dpTouv peTéexouev. Jam not aware that a similar instance 

is to be found in any Greek author. 

b. Words of abounding, filling,! being empty, wanting (Mtth. 
826 ff.) ; as, Rom. xv. 13 0 @eds mAnpwcat buds Tacs yapas Kat 
eipnvns, Luke i. 53 wewavtas évérAnoev ayabov, Acts v. 28 wemdn- 
paxate tv Iepovoadynp ths Sidayns buav (ii. 28 Sept.), Jno. ii. 7 
yeuloate Tas vdpias VdaTos (vi. 13), Matt. xxii. 10 éwArjo@n 6 yapos 
avaxeévov (Acts xix. 29), Jno. i. 14 wdjpns yxapetos, 2 Pet. ii. 14 
opfarpol pectoi povyadisos, Luke xi. 89 To écwbev tuav yéper 
aptrayns Kal jovnplas, Jas. i. 5 et Tes av AelrreTaL copias (Matthiae, 
Kurip. Hippol. 323), Rom. iii. 23 wavres votepovvtat ths d0Ens Tov 
Geov (cf. Lob. Phryn. p. 237), see also Acts xiv. 17; xxvii.38; Luke 
Ryeli.; xxii. 35; Jno. xix. 29; Rom. xv. 14, 24; Rev. xv. 8, 
Verbs of fulness are but rarely joined to avo (Luke xv. 16 éve- 
Over yeuioa THY KoiNay av’ToOD ATO TOV KEepaTior, XVi. 21) or 
éx (yeuitew ex Rev. vili.5; yoptag. é« Rev. xix. 21, but yopragew 
twos Lam. iii. 15, 29, weOvew and pePvonecOat éx Rev. xvii. 2, 6 cf. 
Lucian. dial. d..6, 3).2 Altogether solecistic is Rev. xvii. 5 yéuov 
ta ovopata cf. 4. [This solecism is probably to be explained by 
the analogy of wemAnpwpévor Kaptrov dSixaioc. Phil. i. 11 and the 
like.] The Dat. after wAnpotv, weOvoKec Oar etc. rests on a concep- 
tion essentially different; see § 31,7. How 1 Cor. i. 7 torepetc@ac 

év unoevi yapicpate must be taken, is obvious; cf. Plat. rep. 6, 484 d. 
~ ¢. Verbs of touching (Mtth. 803) so far forth as the touching 190 
affects only a part of the object; as, Mark v. 80 fprato tov (wattov Th el. 
(vi. 56; Luke xxii.51; Jno. xx. 17; 2 Cor. vi. 17, etc.), Heb. xii. 20 215 
Kav Onpiov Oiyn tov dpous (xi. 28). Under this head comes also 
Luke xvi. 24 Samtew voatos, Bhdy. 168 (Barrew eis tdwp Plato, 
Tim. 75 e.; Ael. 14, 39). 

d. Verbs of laying hold of, when only a part of the whole is 
taken hold of; as, Matt. xiv. 31 é«reiwas thy yeipa éredaPeTo avTod, 

To this head may be referred also mAovctos with the Gen. Eurip. Orest. 394. In 
the N. T., however, the preposition év is always used; as, Eph. ii.4 wAovowos ev éréee 
(rich in mercy), Jas. ii. 5. Cf. mroureiv, mAouvticecOau év tui 1 Tim. vi. 18; 1 Cor. i. 5, ete. 

2 On rAnbdvew ard Athen. 13, 569 see Schweighaeus. add. et corrig. p. 478. In Matt. 
XXill. 25 Zrwbey yéuovow (cup and platter) e aprayis Kral axpacias is probably to be 
rendered : they are filled with rapacity, their contents consist of rapacity. Luke, on the 
other hand, transfers the fulness to the Pharisees themselves, and therefore writes : 7d 
eowbev buay yeuer apmayijs etc. Likewise é« ris doufs in Jno. xii. 3 H oikla erAnpdOn 
€k THS OTMAS Tod pvpov does not stand for the Genitive, but denotes that wherefrom the 


filling of the house came ; zt was filled from (by) the odor of the ointment (with fragrance). 
26 ) 


202 '  * §80, GENITIVE. 


ef. Theoph. ch. 4 (with his hand he could take hold of Peter, just 
in the act of sinking, by a part of the body only, perhaps by the 
arm), Luke ix. 47; in a different application Mark ix. 27 xkparjoas 
avTov THs xerpos, Acts ili. T wudcas avtov THs SeFias yeupos (by the 
hand), cf. Plato, Parm. 126; Xen. A.1, 6,10; hence usually with 
the Genitive of a limb; as, Luke viii. 54 xpatnoas ths yeupos avThs, 
Acts xxiii. 19 (isa. xli. 18 -xlii. 6; Gen. xix.16). On the otner 
hand, «pateiy or NapBavew, ér7iNapBavecOal twa always denotes 
182 seize, apprehend one, i.e. his whole person; as, Matt. xii. 11; xiv. 8; 
bthed xviii. 28; Acts ix. 27; xvi. 19; [xviii. 17. Yet it is doubtful 
Whether é€7iAauBavecGas is ever joined to an Acc. of the person, 
since (according to the analogy of Luke xiv. 4 émiAaBopevos tacato 
autov) the Acc. in Acts ix. 27 is probably governed by #yayev, in 
xvi. 19 by etAKvoay, in xvili. 17 by érumrov. See also Mey. on 
Acts ix. 27 (8ded.), and Bttm. Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. 
p- 140]. ‘The same distinction is observed in the figurative use of 
these verbs; as, Genitive, Heb. ii. 16; Lukei. 54; 1 Tim. vi. 2 
(Xen. C. 2, 3,6); Accusative, 2 Thess. ii. 15; Col. ii.19, ete... But 
kpatetv hold fast Heb. iv. 14 and vi. 18 and éwiAapBavec@ai lay hold 
of 1 Tim. vi. 12, 19 (Ael. 14, 27), are construed with the Genitive; 
in both instances, however, with reference to a good which is des- 
tined for many (oporoyia, édmis), and which the individual, for 
his respective part, holds fast or attains. See, in general, Mtth. 
803 f. In an ideal sense ésriAapBavecOar is construed with a 
double Genitive ; as, Luke xx. 20 tva ériAaBwvrar avtod doyou that | 
they might catch him by a word, 26 émiraRécOar adrod pnyaros (ef. 
literally Xen. A.4,7,12). Lastly, to this head is to be referred the 
construction éyecOai twos, hold by, adhere to anything (pendere 
ex), Bleck, Heb. IT. II. 220f.; Mtth. 803, and avtéyec@ai twos. 
Both these verbs are thus used in the N. T. only in a figurative 
sense ; as, Heb.vi.9 ta xpelocova Kai éyoweva owtnpias, Matt. vi, 24 
Tov évos avOéEeTas Kal Tod étépov Katadpovyncet, 1 Thess. v. 14 avté- 
xeobe Tav acbevar, Tit. i. 9 avTeyopevos Tod KaTa THY dudaynV TLOTOD 
Aoyou. Also avexer bat twos endure any thing or any one, comes 
under this head, for it denotes px to hold by a person or 
thing (Matt. xvii. 17; Heb. xiii. 22; Eph. iv. 2), cf. Kypke BRS) 
likewise évoyds (€éveyopevos) Twos, as Matt. xxvi. 66 évoyos Cauteamn 
or 1 Cor. xi. 27 &voyos Tod cHpatos Kal TOD aifatos Tod KUpiov (Jas. 
216 ii. 10), for in all cases a being held by, bound to, something is 
expressed, —Jn the first passage, to a punishment which muct be 
191 suffered, in the second, toa matter for which satisfaction is due. 
ith el. See Fr. Mt. p. 223; Bleek, Hebr. II. 1. 340f.; cf. § 31, pp. 210, 218. 


§ 30. GENITIVE. © 203 


Note 1. The partitive Genitive is sometimes governed by an adverb ; 
as, Heb. ix, 7 dag rov éviavrod once a year, | Matt. xxviii. 1 6wé caBBarwv |, 
Luke xviii. 12; xvii. 4 (Ptol. geogr. 8, 15, 19; 8, 29, 31; 8, 16, 4, etc.) 
ef. Mdv. 54. 

Note 2. The partitive Genitive occtirs not merely in dependence, it also 
makes its appearance sometimes as subject; as, Xen. A. 3, 5,16 dzore... 
oretoawro Kal érystyvvobar opav Te pods éxeivous Kal éxeiywv Tpos adtovs and 
(some) of them have intercourse with those ; of those, with them, Thue. 1,115 
(Theophan. I. 77). In the N.'T. a similar construction occurs in Acts xxi. 16 
cuvpAOov Kal trav pabyrdv ovv Hiv (cf. Pseudarist. p. 120 Havere. év ots Kat 
Bacwtkot Hoav Kal TOV TLmwpévwv bro ToD Bacreéws). In such cases, 
however, the Genitive is regularly accompanied by a preposition ; as, Jno. 


xvi. 17 elrov éx tov pabyrdv avrod ete. 
Pagyn 


9. Moreover, the Genitive is easily to be recognized as the whence 
case when joined 

a. to verbs of accusing, arraigning (sentencing) as Genitive of 
the thing (Mtth. 848), e.g. Acts xix. 40 xwédvvevoper éyxareic Oat 
ortdacews, XXV. 11 ovd€év eat ay obToL KaTnyopovat pov, Luke xxiii. 
14 ovdev ebpov év TH avOpaTr@ TOUT alTLoV AY KaTNYopElTE KAT avTOD 
(yet we find also wepi tivos de aliqua re Acts xxiii. 29; xxiv. 13, 
ef. Xen. Hell. 1,7, 2, like cpiveo@at epi twos Acts xxiii. 6; xxiv. 21); 


for the offence of which one is accused is that from, out of which 183 
the xatnyopeiy arises, or proceeds. We must not, however, fail to ‘th ed 


mention that the two preceding verbs are usually in Greek authors 
construed differently, viz. xaryyopety Tivos Te (a construction which 
ean hardly be proved to occur in the N. T. from Mark xv. 8, ef. 
Lucian. necyom. 19) and éyxarety twi te Mtth. 849 fi} 

b. to cataxavyac@a boast one’s self of a thing (borrow glory 
from something) Jas. iil. 18. On the other hand, the construction 
évraweiv Twa Twos (4 Macc. i. 10; iv. 4; Poppo, Thue. III. I. 661) 
does not occur in the N. T.; for in Luke xvi. 8 rijs déixlas is 
undoubtedly to be joined to occovoyos, and the object of émracveiy is 
expressed only in the clause 67s dpoviws éroincev. In general, 
see on the former construction (Sintenis) in the Leipz. L. Z. 1833, 
J. 1135. Like évraweiv the verb muioety has in later Greek the 
Genitive of the thing (Liban. Oratt. p. 120 d.; @utacuz. L. 56). 

c. to verbs signifying to emit an odor (smell, breathe hard), Mtth. 


1 How karnyopeiy (properly, maintain, assert against one) comes by the Genitive of a 
person (Matt. xii. 10; Luke xxiii. 2, ete.), is obvious; but Kkatayweéonew twds 1 Ino. 
iii. 20 f. is construed exactly in the same manner (J/tth. 860). Instead of éyarety Tut 
(Sir. xlvi. 16) we find in Rom. viii. 33 éykad. kard Tivos, which is as easily accounted 
for as katnyopety ets tive, Maetzner, Antiph. 207. 


bo 


-—I 


204 § 80. GENITIVE. 


856; for in dfw twos the Genitive denotes the substance from 
which the é6fcv emanates. In the N. T. this Gen. occurs only in a 

192 figurative sense, Acts ix. 1 éumvéwy arreidjs Kai hovov panting with, 

ithel breathing of, threatening and slaughter, cf. Aristoph. eq. 487 obros 59 
kaklas Kal cvxodhartias mvet Heliod. 1,2; Ephraem. 2358. Different 
from this are dovov rvéovres Theocr. 22, 82, Ovuov éxmvéwy Kurip. 
Bacch. 620, where’the direct object is expressed : breathing murder, 
courage, the verbs being used as transitive. 

10. The Genitive appears to be removed a little farther from its | 
original import, when joined 

a. to verbs of feeling, in order to denote the object towards 
which the feeling is directed; as, omdayyvifec@ai twos Matt. 
xvill. 27. But in German also, sich jemandes erbarmen, we find 
the Genitive construction ; and in Greek the object was unquestion- 
ably conceived as operating upon the feeling subject, consequently, 
as the point from which the feeling proceeds, i.e. is generated. 
Most verbs of this kind, however, are construed with the Acc., 
conformably to a different conception of the relation; see § 32, 1 
and Hartung, 8. 20. 

b. to verbs of longing and desiring (Mtth. 824 f.), where we 
commonly say, long jor something, hanker after, etc. But the 
Greek conception of émiOupety twos (except in connections where 
the Gen. can be taken partitively, as é7@up. codias, to desire of 
wisdom) was such that the longing, the desire, proceeds from 
the good in question, — the good things of themselves entice men 
to longing. In the N. T. éwi@vpety invariably Gn Matt. v. 28 
alone we find a var.) takes the Genitive ; as, Acts xx. 83 apyvupiou 

1847) ypvalov 4) iwaticpod ovdevos ereOvunoa (1 Tim. ili. 1), so also 
bth el. doéyecOae 1 Tim. iii. 1 et tus érucKxomriis dpéyetat, KadXod epyou ériOupet 
(Isocr. Demon. p. 24 dpexOjvar Tov Karov épywov Lucian. Tim. 70), 
Heb. xi. 16, and (ueiper@as 1 Thess. ii. 8. Likewise in the Sept. 
and the Apocrypha (Wisd. vi. 11; 1 Macc. iv. 17; xi. 11, etc.) we 
find éiOupety tivos the rule (opéyeo@ar does not occur there at 
all), though the verb already begins to be joined as transitive to 
the Acc. Exod. xxo17; Deut. v. 21; vii. 25; Mic. 11.2; Job xxxiii. 
20, cf. Wisd. xvi. 38; Hcclus. xvi. 1. The verb ézvroeiv appears 
constantly with the Acc. even in the earlier Greek (because the 
218 construction was thus resolved in thought: wo@eiy or oop éyeww 
éri tt, after something, cf. Fr. Rom. I. 81), Plat. lege. 9, 855 e.; 
Diod. 8. #7; 101% cf. 2 Cor. ix. 14; Phil.i.8; 1 Pet. ii. 2. Sie 
wise wewhv and dapqv, which in Greek authors regularly take the 


§ 30, GENITIVE. 205 


Genitive, are joined in the N. T. in a figurative sense (in reference 
to spiritual blessings) with the Acc. (diArccodiay dup. Epist. Socr. 
25 p. 58 Allat.) Matt. v. 6 wewavtes kai Supavtes Sixavocvynv. 
The difference between these two constructions is obvious: dup. 
dirocodias means to have a thirst for philosophy, while dup. 
dirocopiay represents philosophy as something indivisible which 193 
one wishes to get possession of. Tth ed, 
Next to the verbs already mentioned follow, c. those of thinking 
of, remembering (Mtth. 820); as, Luke xvii. 82 prnpovevete rijs 
yuvatxos Awt, [1 Thess. i. 3], Luke i. 72 prvncOivar dvabjxns, Acts 
xi.16; 1 Cor, xi.2; Luke xxiii. 42; Heb. xiii.2; Jude 17; 2 Pet. 
iii. 2 (also drromipyncKew Twa Tepi Tivos 2 Pet. i.12). We, too, 
say: einer Sache gedenken, think of a matter, for this process is 
simply the seizing, laying hold of, a particular with the memory. 
Correspondingly, in the case of forgetting a thing, Heb. xii. 5 éxnré- 
AnoGe THs TapakAjoews, Vi. 10 erirabécFas Tod Epyou vuor, Xiii. 2, 
16. But dvapipryjcKecbar Heb. x. 32; 2 Cor. vii. 15; Mark xiv. 72 
and pynuovevey Matt. xvi. 9; 1 Thess. ii. 9; Rev. xviii. 5 often 
govern the Accusative (Mtth. 820), yet rather in the sense of having 
present in the mind, holding in remembrance (Bhdy. 177); émidav- 
Oavec@ar likewise is joined to this case in Phil. ii. 14, so sometimes 
in the Sept. (Deut. iv. 9; 2 Kings xvii. 88; Isa. lxv. 16; Wisd. 
ii.4; Hcclus. iii. 14), and even in Attic (Mtth. 821). This double 
construction rests on a different view of the relation, of which 
there is a glimpse also in Latin. Verbs of mentioning do not 
take the Genitive in the N. 'T.; but we find, instead, purnpov. rept 
Heb. xi. 22 (cf. prpvnoxecbas wrepi Xen. C. 1,6, 12; Plut. paedag. 
mee ; Lob, iv. 1). 
d. Further, the transition is easy to verbs of caring for or neg- 
lecting (Mtth. 821), Luke x. 34 émrewerOn adrod (1 Tim. iii. 5), 
1 Cor. ix. 9 yn tov Body pére Td Ged; (Acts xviii. 17; Plut. 
paedag. 17, 22), Tit. ili. 8 a ppovtifwor Karwv épywv, 1 Tim. v. 8 
TV Lovwv ov Tpovoet, 1 Tim. iv. 14 pur) dpéres TOD ev Goi yaplopatos 
(Heb. ii. 3), Heb. xii. 5 yu) odvy@per radelas Kkvpiov. Under this 
head comes also deideoOar (Mtth. 822),? Acts xx. 29 yr) hedopevor 185. 
Tod Towmviov not sparing the flock, 1 Cor. vii. 28; 2 Pet. ii. 4. ete. She 


1 In the Sept. this verb is found with the Dat. Ex. xvii. 3 éiWnoev 6 Aads bart (for 
water). Likewise in Ps. Ixii. 2 the Cod. Vat. has édfbycé oor (0, al. ve) ) Puxh pov. 

2 In Latin parcerealicui. But in the Greek eiSecOa, judging from the construction, 
lies rather the notion of restraining one’s self from, sibi temperare etc. In the Sept., 
however, this verb also takes the Dative, and is construed with prepositions. 


— 206 § 30. GENITIVE. 


219 On the other hand, we find pérev also with vepé in Matt. xxii. $65 
Jno. x.13; xii. 6, etc. (Her: 6,101; Xen. C.4,5,17; Hiero, 9, 10, 
etc.; Wisd. xii. 18; 1 Mace. xiv. 43, cf. Strange in Jahn’s Archiv 
II. 400). 

c. Lastly, verbs of ee (Mtth. 838) take the Genitive as the 
simple case of dependence (for to this the notion of preceding also 
reduces itself, Hartung, S.14): Mark x. 42 ot doxodvTes dpyew Tav | 
éOvav Kataxuptevovew av’tav (Rom. xv. 12 LXX.), ef. also cupseverw 
Rom. xiv. 9; 2 Cor. i. 24, adv@evrety 1 Tim. ii. 12, catadvvacreverv 
Jas. ii. 6, avOuTatrevev Acts xviii. 12 etc. — verbs all derived from 
nouns, and whose construction is to be resolved thus; kvpuov Tivos 
eivat, avOvTratov Tivos evar. On the other hand, Bacikevew Twos 

194 (Her. 1, 206 and Sept.) never occurs in the N.T.; but we find 

ihe. instead, conformably to the Heb. idiom (+2 with verbs of ruling, 
Ps. xlvii. 9; Prov. xxviii. 15; Neh. v.15) Bac. émi tivos Matt. 
ii. 22; Rev. v. 10, or émi twa Luke i. 83; xix. 14,27; Rom.v. 14; 
cf. Lob. Phryn. 475. 


Verbs of buying and selling take the Genitive of the price (Bhdy. 177 f. 
Mav. 67 f.) ; as, Matt. x. 29 oixt dv0 orpovbia docaptov mwetrat — xxvi. 9 
novvaro Tovty mpabjva. toAXod, xx. 13; Mark xiv. 5; Acts v. 8 (Plato 
apol. 20 b.) 1 Cor. vi. 20; cf. Rey. vi. 6 — Bar. i. 10; ii. 80 (but Matt. 
XXVil. 7 7yopacayv e€ atirav viz. dpyupluy, Acts i. 18), Acts vil. 16 OVHTATO 
TyLns dpyvplov (with é« Palaeph. 46, 3, 4). Also under this head comes 
Jude 11 779 wAdvy Tod Badatp, pro God éfexVOnoav for reward (Xen. C. 3, 
2,7; Plat. rep. 9,575 b.). Agreeably to the construction with éx, and 
still more in view of the fundamental import of the Genitive, this genitivus 
pretii might be reduced to the notion of proceeding from (cf. Eng. proceeds), 
as that which is bought for a price comes to us, as it were, out of the price 
given. But it is probably more correct to refer this construction to the 
Genitive of exchanging, and to compare such phraseology as dAAdooew Te 
twos (Hartung, 15; Mtth. 483); for one buys or sells in exchange for so 
much money. Hence in Greek dvré [cf. Heb. xii. 2, 16] is the preposition 
of price. (A different view will be found in Hm. Opuse. I. 179 3, see_on the 
other hand Priifer de graeca et lat. declinat. 98 sq-). However, the con- 
struction éd\Adooew, SiadAdooew ti Twos does not itself occur in the Greek 
Bible, but in Rom. i. 23 we find the more explicit dAAdooew tu &v TwWL, as 
in the Sept. (after the Heb. 3 "72) Ps. cv. 20. ’"AdAaooey Ti TL ComeES 
nearest to this (Her. 7, 152; Sept. Exod. xiii. .13; Lev. xxvii. 10, and 
frequently). Moreover, words of valuing, estimating, etc. stand on the 
same footing with verbs of buying, etc., and govern in like manner the 
Genitive (Krii. 44) ; cf. dévos Matt. ii. 8; x.10; Rom.i. 32, dgitv 2 Thess. 
i. 11; 1 Tim. v. 17; Heb. iii. 3, ete. 


§ 80. GENITIVE. 207 


11. The Genitive of place and of time is employed without being 186 
directly governed by a single word, yet in accordance with the +. 
primary import of the case (Hm. Vig. 881; Hartung, 32 ff.) and 220 
in obvious connection with the structure of the sentence; as, Aesch. 
Prom. 714 rads yerpos cidnporéxtoves oixodat XdduBes on the left 
hand (Her. 5, 77), Xen. Eph. 5,13 éxelvns tis npuépas that day, 
Philostr. her. 9,3 f. yeeuavos in winter, ‘of a winter,’ Thue. 3, 104 
(Mtth. 857 f.). The N. T. writers, in this case, almost invariably 
employ a preposition. Only in certain standing phrases do they 
use the Genitive alone (which is strictly a partitive Genitive) ; as, 
often vuxtos by night, also wéons vuetos Matt. xxv. 6, tuépas Kat 
vuxros Luke xviii. 7; Acts ix. 24 (Xen. A. 2, 6,7), yeswavos Matt. 
xxiy. 20 (joined with ca8Bdatw), Luke xxiv. 1 épOpouv Baéos, v. 19 
fe evpovTes, Tolas (6000) eisevéykwow avtov (by) what way, xix. 
4 (éxeivys sc. 6500), Gal. vi. 17 tod Aourod (Thue. 4. 98) cf. the 
German dés weitern. (But for the very reason that the Genitive 195 
of time is confined in the N. T. to simple and current phrases, ii 
Acts i. 3 jyepdv teccapadxovra in D must not be translated within 
forty days (Mtth. 858), see above 2,a. Had such. been Luke’s 
meaning, he would undoubtedly have employed a preposition.) 


Rey. xvi. 7 yKovea tod Ovovacryplov déyovros is certainly not to be 
referred to this head (J heard speaking from the altar, cf. Soph. El. 78 ; 
Erfurdt, Soph. Oed. R. 142; Bttm. Philoct. 115; Bhdy. 137); but, in 
accordance with the analogous expressions in verse 5 and vi. 3, 5, it must 
be translated / heard the altar speaking ; see Bengel in loc. This pros- 
opopoeia may be attributed to the strangely mysterious character of these 
visions, see de Wette. The reading yx. dAAov éx Tod Ovovacrypiov dey. 
is a manifest correction. On TiPepiados Jno. vi. 1 see above, p. 191. 
Note. Genitives absolute, which often occur in the historical style even 
in the N. T., are not in their original application propérly absolute, but 
come under the Genitive as the case defining time, cf. Hartung, 5. 31 
(hence they correspond to Ablatives absolute in Latin). Subsequently, 
however, they are used in a more extended reference, especially to 
specify the cause and condition (also involved in the Genitive). We 
have merely to remark here, that they sometimes occur where the nature 
of the verb following would lead one to expect a different oblique case : 
Luke xvii. 12 cisepyopevov airod ... drqvrncav adT@, xxii. 10, 53; xviii. 
40 éyyicavros aitod érepwstycey airov, Mark xi. 27; Acts iv. 1; xxi. 175 
2 Cor. xii. 21; Jno. iv. 51. This is usual likewise in Greek authors, 
partly because at the beginning of the sentence the writer had not yet 
decided on the principal verb, and partly because the regular construction 
would often render the expression clumsy, cf. Her. 1, 41; Thuc. 1, 114; 


208 | § 31. DATIVE. 


221 3,13; Xen. A. 2, 4,24; Mem. 4, 8,5; Pol. 4, 49,1; Xen. Eph. 4, 5; 
Heliod. 2, 80, 113; Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. I. 21; Schaef. Apollon. Rh. 
II. 171 and Dem. II. 202; Poppo, Thue. I. 2, 119; Siebelis, Pausan. IL. 8; 
Hoffmann, Pr. de casib. absol. p. 1.4. Likewise 2 Cor. iv. 18 aicviov Bdpos 

187 d0€ys Katepyagerar mtv, pn cKorovvTov 1uGv Ta BAeropeva might have 

bth ed. been expressed thus: py cKorotc. 7a PAer. By the former construction, 
however, the participial clause is brought out with more prominence and 
force. Cf. Xen. C. 6,1, 37. Finally, Genitives absolute are exceptionally 
used when the’subject of the prificipal clause (in the Nominative) is the 
same as that of the secondary clause ; as, Matt. i. 18 pvynorevbelons THs wntpos 
aitod Mapias tO “Iwond, mpiv 7) ovvedAbeiv airovs, eipéOn ev yaotpl exovca, 
where the writer probably had contemplated another termination of the 
sentence. So perhaps Rey. xvii. 8. In Greek authors such instances are 
rare; yet see Her. 5, 81; Plat. rep. 8,547 b.; Pol. 31, 17, 1, cf. Poppo, 
Thue. I. 119 sq.; Wannowski, p. 61 sqq. In the Sept. notice Gen. xliy. 4; 

196 Exod. iv. 21; v. 20; xiv. 18; cf Acta. apocr. p. 68, 69; Epiphan. vit. 

ith ed. y, 326, 340,346 (in the 2d vol. of the Works of Epiphan. ed. Colon.) ; in 
Latin, Suet. Tib. 31. In all these instances Genitives absolute appear as 
fixed forms of expression, their grammatical origin being no longer taken 
into consideration. . 


§ 31. DATIVE. 


In Greek the Dative is the more comprehensive in its import, 
because it represents the Ablative also, which in Latin is a sep- 
arate case (cf. Hm. emend. rat. p. 140). Its relation to a sentence 
is not (in general) close and essential, like that of the Acc. or even 
the Gen.; but it serves merely to complete and extend, inasmuch 
as it points out the object (mostly a person) towards which an 
action tends, to which it has reference, yet on which it does not 
directly terminate. Hence the Dative frequently accompanies an 
Ace. of the object; as, 2 Cor. ix. 2 rpobupia iv kavydpar Maxedoow, 
Acts xxii. 25 mpoérewav adrov tots Gudow (Kuin. in loc.), xxiv. 5; 
Jno. vi.18. In a looser application (to things) the Dative denotes 
what in any way accompanies the action, as motive, power, cir- 
cumstance (of time and place), etc. 

9922 1. We shall first consider the Dative as the case of reference 
(of the more remote object, as it is commonly called) when joined 
to transitive verbs —as, didovar (Swpeicbal) ri Tu, ypadew Ti Tit 
(2 Cor. ii. 3), edayyeriGecOai twi te (Luke ii. 10; 2 Cor. xi. 7), 

1 From the Latin compare Ablat. absol. in Cic. Phil. 11,10; fam. 15,4, 18; Caes. b. 
gall. 5,4; civ. 1,36; 2,19; 3, 21. 





§ 31, DATIVE. 209 


ddpeirew Tiwi Te Matt. xviii. 28; Rom. xiii. 8 (cf. Rom. i. 14; viii. 
12, contrary xv. 27), duoodv twa twe Matt. vii. 24; xi. 16, catad- 
Adooew twa Tur 2 Cor. v.18, éyelpew Ordbw rots Seopois Phil. 
i. 17, all which present no difficulty,—and especially to intransitive 
verbs and their cognate adjectives. 

Its force is more or less distinct, 

a. In axondoviety, éyyifew, Ko\NGo Oat, ctovyeiv (Rom. iv. 12 etc.), 
dedéc0ar (Rom. vii. 2; 1 Cor. vii. 27), evrvyydvew twi etc., also 
evyecOai tur Acts xxvi. 29. 

b. In pepiwvav Matt. vi. 25, opyifecOar v. 22, pwerpromrabeiv tin 
Heb. v. 2, in wéudeoOar Heb. viii. 8 (Krii. 21), POovetv Gal. v. 26. 

c. In rictevew, werobévar, aTrioTtety, avreOety, UTaKkovew, UTHKOOS, 
evayTios, etc. 

d. In mposcuvetv, XNatpedvdery (not Phil. iii. 3), Sovrodv..- 

e. In dpéoxew, dpxeiv Matt. xxv.9; 2 Cor. xii. 9, apxeros and 
ixavos Matt. vi. 34; 1 Pet. iv. 8; 2 Cor. ii. 6. 

f. Further, in £evifec@ai tu 1 Pet. iv. 12 (Thue. 4, 85) be sur- 188 
prised at a thing (the surprise being in reference to the thing), "4 
amonoyeicGai (2 Cor. xii. 19; Acts xix. 33 cf. 1 Pet. ili. 15) and 
SiaréyeoOai tur (Acts xvii. 2; xviii. 19), SvaxateréyyecPal twe 
Acts xviii. 28 (Soyparitew tui cf. Col. ii. 20), where the person to 
whom the conversation, defence, etc. is addressed, is indicated by 
the Dative. Also dyuoroyety and €EoporoyetcPat tux (Jas. v. 16), 
even in the sense of praise (> mtin) Luke x. 21; Rom. xiv. 11; 197 
Heb. xiii. 15, since every act of praise to God is a confession made ihe 
to him, that we recognize him as the High and Mighty One. So 
in one instance also aivetv tw Rey. xix. 5 according to the best 
Codd. [Sin. too], cf. Eeclus. li. 12; in this case, too, sH+in was 
probably in mind,—unless the construction is ad sensum like edzety 
aiveow. 

g. In xpivecOai Matt. v. 40, dvaxpivec@ai tur Jude 9 (Jer. xv. 10) 
to go to law, to contend with one. 

h. In verbs of likeness or similarity —under another point of 
view — Matt. xxiii. 27 owoidfere taddows Kexoviapévois, vi. 8; Heb. 

ii. 17; 2 Cor. x. 12 cf. dots, isos twi Matt. xi. 16; Jno. ix. 9; 
1 Jno. iii. 2; Acts xiv. 15; Matt. xx.12; Phil. ii. 6; ef. Fr. Arist. 
amic. p. 15 (duat0s also once with the Genitive, Jno. viii. 55; Mtth. 
873 ; cf. § 30, 4), and verbs of participating in; as, 1 Tim. v. 22; 
1 Pet. iv. 18 cf. Luke v. 10; Rom. xv. 27 (these verbs have more 
frequently the Gen. § 30, 8). Likewise ourcty tus Acts xxiv. 26. 


i. In verbs of using, as yphobas Acts xxvii. 17; 1 Cor. ix. 12, 15; 223 
27 


210 § 31. DATIVE. 


(on the contrary, once 1 Cor. vii. 31 with the Acc. in the best Codd. 
[also Sin.*], as sometimes in later writers e.g. Malal. p.5; Theophan. 
p. 814; Bockh, corp. inscript. II. 405—not Xen. Ages. 11, 11 — 
cf. Bornem. Act. p. 222. But in Acts xxvii. 17 the Acc. has little 
authority ). 

k. In ornjxew (éotnKxévar) tii, to stand fast for a thing 2 Cor. 
i. 24; Gal. v. 1 (var.), or a person Rom. xiv. 4. 


IIposxuvety (reverence and worship) invariably governs the Dative in 


- Matt. Mark and Paul (Matt. iv. 10 is a quotation from Deut. vi. 13) ; 


189 
6th ed. 


198 
7th ed, 


224 


while in the other N.'T. writers it has sometimes the Dat. (Jno. ix.°38 ; 
Acts vii. 43; Heb. i. 6; Rev. iv.10; vil. 11; xiii. 4, etc.), sometimes the 
Ace. (Luke iv. 8; xxiv.52; Jno.iv. 23; Rey. ix. 20; xiv.11); similarly 
yovurrerewv twa Mark (i. 40) x.17; Matt. xvii. 14 (and Aarpevew twa some- 
times, Mtth. 886). The Dative after zposkuvety is peculiar to later Greek 
alone; Lob. Phryn. p. 463; cf. Bos, ex. phil. p. 1 sqq.; Kypke, obs. I. 7 sq. 

Xaipew, which in Greek authors is often construed with the Dative (Fr. 
Rom. III. 78 f.), and sometimes also in the Sept. (Prov. xvii. 19, ef. Bar. 
iv. 37), is never so used in the N. T. (on Rom. xii. 12 see below, No. 7; 
in 1 Cor. xiii. 6 the Dat. depends on ovv) but for the most part with ézi over. 

The phrases dofavety rH dyapria, 7d vouw Rom. vi. 2; Gal. ii. 19, 
Gavarotoba. 76 vopw Rom. vii. 4, vexpdv etva 7 dp. vi. 11, in antithesis to 
fhv ru (tO Ged Rom. vi. 10 cf. 1 Pet. iv. 10) signify: to be dead to (for) 
sin, the law ete. cf. Rom. vii. 4 eis 70 yevérOar tas éErépw and dmoyeveobat 
7™ dpopt. 1 Pet. ii. 24. In the same way, in Rom. vi. 20 édXevGepor rH 
duxatoovvy is contrasted with dovActa Gat TH Stxarootvy (verse 18 cf. 19, 20) : 
when ye were slaves to sin, ye were free to (relatively to) righteousness, — 
so far as righteousness is concerned, freemen. 

In xaraxpivew twa Oavarw Matt. xx. 18 (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 6),! an expression 
unknown to classic Greek, we find a Dative of the. thing after a verb of 
sentencing : to condemn one to death, i.e. by sentence adjudge to death. 
The classical Greek construction is kataxpivew twd& @Gavarov or Odvarov 
(Mtth. 850; Heupel, Mr. 285), or xaraxp. twit Gavarov Her. 6,85 (to award 
death). Analogous is karadudlew twa Oavdrw, Lob. Phryn. p. 475; cf. 
also évoyos Tq Kptoee Matt. v. 21 f. amenable to the court (§ 80,8). Cf. 
Bleek, Heb. Il. I. 340. 


2. Closely connected with this is the Dative dependent on eivaz 
(imdpyew) and ytveo@ar (not on the predicates joined to them) ; 
for éoti or yivetat wot boos can only mean: the ¢oSov eivat or 
yiver Oat applies, refers, to me. From it result the following uses: 


1 This construction is unknown also in the O.T. Of the parallel passages quoted 
by Bretsch. one, Sus. 41, is katéxpway abtriy amobavetv, and the other, vs. 48, is absol. 
Katexplyare Ouvyatépa “Iopana. 


§ 81. DATIVE. 211 


a. Without a predicate, etvai rut expresses property (possession), 
yivecOai Tiwe impartation: Luke ii. 7 ov« Hv adtois tomos they had 
no room, Acts vil. 21; x.6; ii.6; xxi.23; Matt. xviii.12; Luke 
i. 14 éorat yapa oot, Matt. xvi. 22 od un Eotat cou TodTo this will 
not befall thee, Acts xx. 8,16; 11. 48 éyévero macy Wwuyn doBos 
fear fell upon, Rom. xi. 25. Elliptically 1 Cor. vi. 18; v.12; 2 Cor. 
vi. 14; Jno. i. 4 (Krii. 59). 

b. With a predicate (mostly a substantive), eévas or yiver@ai 
Twt denotes what quality for a person a thing has or receives, 
objectively as well as subjectively G.e. in his own opinion) ; as, 
1 Cor. viii. 9 paras 4 éEovcia ... Tposkoupa yévntas Tos aaOevécwy, 
i. 18 0 Xoyos 0 TOD Graupod Tos pEV ATTOAAULEVYS papia éeoTiv ete. 
Smee xy, 22 Rom. it. 143 “viii 13; 1 Cor. iv. 3; ix. 3% Phil. 
i. 28. But become (redound) to (Krii. 59) is usually expressed in 
the N. T. by eivae or yiveo@ar eis Te. 

3. Substantives derived from verbs governing a Dative some- 
times take the same case, instead of the ordinary Genitive; as, 
2 Cor. ix. 12 evyapiorias rH Gem (not 11), somewhat like edyai Tois 
Geois Plat. legg. 7, 800 a., see Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. 1. 154 Lips. ; 
Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. 101, and rep. I. 372; Ast, Plat. Polit. 451; 
Bornem. Xen. Cyr. 374; Fr. Mr. p.63. Compare besides 76 efwOds 
av7@ Luke iv. 16; Acts xvii. 2 (Plat. lege. 658 e. 7d F005 iv) 
and 70 evrapedpov TH xupiw 1 Cor. vii. 35. The case is different 
in Luke vii. 12 vios povoyerhs th untpi a son who was to his mother 
an only son (thus not strictly for the Genitive, cf. Tob. iii. 15 
povoyerns TO Twatpt, Judg. xi. 34), with which the Dative of rela- 
tionship — ef. Luke v.10; Rom. iv. 12 (Bttm. Philoct. p. 102 sq. ; 
Boisson. Nic. p. 271; Ast, Plat. Polit. 451, 519, also lege. p. 9) — 
is not to be confounded. On Rom. iv. 12 see § 61, 5, p. 555. 


Also in Matt. xxvii. 7 jydpacay rov dypov ...els rady tots E€vots 
for a burying-ground for strangers, the Dative belongs to the substantive ; 
ef. Strabo 17, 807 zpos éri8seréw rots E€vors. See Schoem. Isae. p- 264; 199 
Krii. 68 f. But in 1 Cor. vii. 28 the Dative may be referred to the verb ray 


of the sentence. Yet see Bhdy. S. 88. bth ed 


4. The Dative, without being directly involved in the sienifica- 
tion of a verb or noun, expresses the relation of the action to some 
one: 2 Cor. ii. 12 ob« éoynna dveow TO TvEvpaTl pou for my spirit 
(1 Cor. vii. 28), or Luke xviii. 31 rdvra ra yeypapméeva ... TH ViP 225 
tov avOparrov which were written Jor lim (that they might receive 
fulfilment in him), (Matt. xiii. 14; Jude 14). Cf. besides, Matt. 
xiii, 52; Phil.i. 27; 1 Tim. i. 9; Rev. xxi. 2. Especially desery- 
ing of notice are, 


219 § 31. DATIVE. 


a. The Dative of opinion or decision (cf. above, No. 2); as, 
Plato, Phaed. 101 d. e@ cou adrnjroLs Evphavet 1) dvapwvet ; Soph. 
Oed. C. 1446. So in the expressions Acts vil. 20 adotetos TO Ge@, 
2 Cor. x. 4 duvata 76 OeG.1 See also 1 Cor. ix. 2. Cf Wyttenb. 
Plat. Phaed. as above; Erfurdt, Soph. Oed. R. 615; Kri. 61. 

b. The Dative of anterest, 2 Cor. v. 15 etre éEeoTnpev, Oe@: etTe 
owdpovodpev, uuiv (Rom. xiv. 6; 1 Cor. xiv. 22), or, more definitely, 
the dativus commodi and incommodi, Jno. iii. 26 6 ob pewapripnxas, 
to whom, in favor of whom (Luke iv. 22; Rom. x. 2; 2 Cor. ii. 1; 
ef. Xen. M. 1, 2, 21). On the other hand, Matt. xxiii. 31 papru- 
petite EavTots Ott viol gate etc., against yourselves, cf. Jas. v. 3. 
Cf. besides, Heb. vi. 6; Jude 1; Rom. xiii. 2. On Rev. viii. 8, see 
Ewald. (But Eph. v. 19 Aadobvtes Eavtots — adAHrAOIs — Warois, 
etc., is a simple Dative of direction: speaking to one another, etc.) 

5. The preceding illustrations suffice to show that the Dative is 
as closely related to the prepositions e¢s (Engelhardt. Plat. Menex. 
p- 860)? and pos (cf. Ast, Plat. legg. p. 558), as the Gen. is to 
the prepositions é« and avo. Hence in many phrases one of the 
former prepositions is used instead of the Dative. Thus we find, 
as every one knows, not only Aéyew Twi and apos twa (the latter is 
in Matt. and Mark the usual indeed almost invariable expression, 
see Schulz, Parab. v. Verwalt. S. 88) — cf. cpafewv twi Rev. vii. 2 ; 

xiv. 15, dovety tue Rev. xiv. 18,— but also evyec@ar Oe@ Acts 
xxvi. 29 (Xen. Cyr. 5, 2,12; Demosth. Conon. 729 c. ; Plut. Coriol. 
9; Xen. Eph. 4,3), and edyecPar mpos Oeov 2 Cor. xiii. T (Xen. 
M. 1, 3, 2) ef. Phil. iv. 6, Boav tux Luke xviii. 7 and 8. apés teva Hos. 
vii. 14, wevder@ai tw (Acts v. 4; Ps. xvii. 45; Ixxvii. 36; Jer. 
v. 12, but not in Greek authors) and ywevd. wpds twa (to lie against 
one, to be false towards one) Xen. A. 1, 3,5, catadratrew Twi and 
200 mpos twa Xen. vectig.6, 8; Joseph. antt. 14,11, 3,? evdoxeiv eis twa 
Thel. 2 Pet. i. 17 and tut in Greek writers (Pol. 4, 22,7; 1 M.i. 48), 
226 payeoOai tur Xen. A. 4, 5, 12; Plato, rep. 3, 407 a. and mpos Tuva 
Jno. vi. 52; Tliad. 17, 98; Plato, Lach. 191 d.; Lucian. conv. 42, 
and often (also in Sept.),! oueretv teve and mpés Twa Luke xxiv. 14; 


LTobs rrwxods TS kdouw, as Lchm. and Tdf. read Jas. ii. 5, would be similar. 

2 In modern Greek the Acc. with eis serves very commonly as a circumlocution for 
the Dative, even in its simplest relations ; as, Aéyw eis Toy plAov pou dico amico meo, 
(German, gegen m. Fr.), see v. Liidemann, Lehrb. 90. 

3 Col. i. 20amoxarada. eis would be analogous, if this were not designedly a pregnant 
construction ; see Mey. 

* So besides mapaBdArew ti tut (Her. 4.198) also tz rpds tt occurs (Joseph. Ap. 2. 15). 
Otherwise Mark iv. 30 év qoig mapaBoAj mapaBdAwuev Thy Bactrclay tod Oeod, see Fr.; 
but the reading here varies. 


§ 31. DATIVE. 213 


Xen. M. 4, 3, 2. The construction with a preposition doubtless 191 
attracted the N. T. writers, through the influence of the explicit ®# 
and graphic idiom of their vernacular tongue, and hence where 
the Dat. commodi or incommodi would have been sufficient for 
native Greek authors, we find es: Acts xxiv. 17 éNenwoovvas roun- 
cov eis TO €Ovos pov, Luke vii. 830 ryv Bovrrv tod Ocod HOérncav 
els éavtous to their own harm (so that eis also signifies contra). 
On the other hand xnpvrrew or evayyerifec Oar eis, being constantly 
followed by the Plural of the noun, denotes to make known among, 
Mark xiii. 10; 1 Pet.i. 25; Luke xxiv. 47 (Paus. 8,5, 8). In 
Matt. xx. 1 pucdotcOa eis Tov auredkOva means hire, not for, 
but znto his vineyard. In the same way, the construction is preg- 
nant in Mark viii. 19 tods dptous éxXaca els Tovs Trevraxisyir. broke 
(and divided) among the ete. Likewise in Matt. v. 22 évoyos els 
tv yéevvav liable into Gehenna, i.e. to go, be cast (on the other 
hand 7) Kpicet, 7@ cvvedpiw). Also Rom. vill. 18 tHv wédXovcav 
dofav aTroxadudOjvar eis-7uas is an abridged expression (see Fr.) 
similar to the Hebrew -5x nba 1 Sam. iii. 7. Lastly, in the phrases 
a@perywos wpos Te 1 Tim. iv. 8; 2 Tim. iii. 16 (with e¢s Xen. Occ. 5, 
11 cf. ypnowpos eis Wisd. xiii. 11), evOeros ets te Luke xiv. 35 (Dion. 
H. de Thue. 55, 3, with wpos Pol. 26,5,6; D. S. 5,37) the preposi- 
tion with the Rh must not be regarded as put for the Dative, since 
useful, adapted, for, to something is quite an appropriate expression, 
while the Dative would be more suitable in reference to the Person. 
Yet cf. Luke ix. 62 var. 

The phrase miorevew eis or éxi twa (Acts ix. 42; xxii. 19) obviously 
means in Christian phraseology more than miorevew tii (credere, confidere 
alicui), and is to be taken as pregnant: in faith to resign one’s self wnto 
any one, to profess one’s self a believer on one, fide se ad aliquem applicare.? 
Likewise rapadiddvat cis (to deliver up to any one) is not simply equivalent 927 
to zap. Twi, but rather denotes deliver into the power of, surrender to, Matt. 201 
x. 17; hence it is used with @dvaros Matt. x. 21; 2 Cor. iv. 11, OXtywus Matt. 7th ed. 
xxiv. 9, dxafapoia Rom. i. 24 etc.; cf. Xen. Hel.1,7,3. The construction 
éavTovs TapedwKav 7H acedyeia eis epyactav axalapaias taons etc. Eph. iv. 19 


requires no explanation. 


1 In Luke viii. 43 the text. rec. has eis latpov’s mposavaddcaca bAov Toy Biov, but the 
best Codd. |Sin. too] have iarpots. The latter must be preferred, as the former appears 
to be a correction. In Greek authors, that is to say, the verb is usually construed with 
eis, Xen. Cyrop. 2, 4,9; Aclian. 14, 32. 

2 Thorevew év XpicrG is to be understood in the same way, yet this expression cannot 
be unquestionably established from Gal. iii. 26; Eph. i. 13; we find, however, in Mark 
1,15 mor. ev TH evayyeAlw, which is not essentially different. Further, % mpés twa 
mioris, and the like (Schwarz, Comment. p. 1102), do not prove the expression morevew 
mpéds or ets Twa to be pure Greek. 


214 § 31. DATIVE. 


Note. The Dat. is related also to pera. Accordingly, in the N. T. we 
find zoAenety pera twos Rev. xii.7 ; xiii. 4 for woAeuety tii, also KptverOau pera 
twos 1 Cor. vi. 6 (7). In other relations a circumlocution for the Dat. is 


192 formed, a. By means of évusriov Acts vi. 5 ypecev Evuoriov ravTos TOU TAnOovs 


6th ed, 


228 


(Gen. xxxiv. 18; xli.‘37; 2 Sam. iii. 36, etc.) cf. 1 Jno. ill. 22, mposkuvety 
evwoiov Tov Oeod (Luke iv. 7; Rev. xv. 4). This, like almost all construc- 
tions with évwiov (7253), is Hebraistic. b. After wérouBa. by év Phil. iii. 3, 
or emt with Dat. Mark x. 24; 2 Cor. i. 9 and with Acc. Matt. xxvii. 48 
(1 Mace. x. 77), [or lastly by eis, yet only in Gal. v.10]. c. After axoAovbety 
by éricw Matt. x. 88; see § 33. 


That the Dative can be employed precisely for the local mpos or 
eis With the Acc. has been denied by Bornem. (in Rosenm. Reper- 
tor. IT. 253 and in the neu. krit. Journ. d. theol. Literat. VI. 146 f., 
cf. also ad Anab. p. 23), and also by Mey. on Acts ii. 88. It is 
true, the examples adduced from Greek poets by Fr. (Conject. I. 
42’) do not establish the rule (for prose), and the N. T. passages 
may be explained differently: in Acts ii. 83 and v. 31 wpodv 7H 
de&a may signify by (his) right hand; in Rev. ii. 16 cov is simply 
a Dat. incommodi; even Acts xxi. 16 might be rendered (after 
Beza and Glass.) adducentes secum, apud quem hospitaremur Mna- 
sonem, so that Mvdcwu dependent on ayovtes as Acc. of the object 
(Mvacwva x.t.r.) would be incorporated into the relative clause. 
But the latter rendering has little probability.1 Sooner could we, 
according to Bornem.’s more recent suggestion (Luke p. 177 sq.), 
resolve the attraction in the above passage thus: ayovres (7mas) 
rapa Mvdcwvd twa... Tap’ @ FevicOa@pev (as to aye Tapa Twa 
cf. Her. 1, 86; 3,15); even this, however, is not the easiest way. 
The construction dyew tut bring to one may indeed be unusual 
(yet see the Note) in Attic prose, but in later prose authors we 
find expressions entirely similar, as dovray tue Philostr. Soph. 2, 
1, 14 (Wyttenbach, Plutarch. Mor. IV. 389), Heeev teri Plutarch. 


902 Aem. 16, 1, eishépew twa tue Malal. 10, p. 9231. On Acts xxi. 16 


7th ed. 


especially, however, cf. Xen. Eph. 3, 6, p. 63 worepov nyounv “ABpo- 


1 Not precisely on account of the annexed predicate apx. uabnth (Bengel’s n. Archiv 
III. 175), as that refers to Mnason to show that Paul could trust him perfectly ; but 
rather because it is not credible that his companions would have brought a host for 
Paul with them from Caesarea, as there were in Jerusalem so many trustworthy Chris- 
tians. According to this view one would have to assume that this Mnason was either 
accidentally present in Caesarea, or that he had a residence in two places at the same 
time. By dropping secum, which is not implied in &yovtes, the statement would become 
simpler: they brought (introduced) Mnason in Jerusalem after their arrival; but then 
the position of the words would not be suitable. 


§ 81. DATIVE. 915 


Kon, and Epiph. vit. p. 840 d. jyayev avtov ’Abavacin TO Tarra.) 
See also Bhdy. 95; Held, Plut. Aem. P. p. 200. Hence inpotv 77 
de&a may without hesitation be translated: raise ro the right hand ; 
cf. vs. 34 (of Acts ll.) xa@ou éx deEia@v ov; cf. Lucian. asin. 39. 


In Luke ii. 41 ézopevovro ... cis ‘Iep. tH EoprTyH is not to the festival 193 
(Luth. auf das Osterfest), but either on account of the f. (see below, 6 c.), Sth ed. 
or, as a loose expression, at the f. (as we also say: they made a yearly 
journey at Easter to ... to attend divine service). There would be more 
reason for referring to the preceding rule Mark xiv. 53 ovvépxovrat airo 
convenerant eum, and Jno. xi. 33 rovs cvveAPovras airy ‘Tovdaious (Fr. Mr. 
648). Still, as appears to me, in both these passages the Dative is really 
governed by ovv: the second signifying simply, who had come with her ; 
and the first, they came with him, that is, with Jesus (verse 54), see BCrus. 

Further, different from.the foregoing construction is that of the Dative 
joined to verbs of coming in an ideal sense ; as, Acts xxi. 31 aveByn acts 
T® xAupxy compare our tidings came to him. A similar usage occurs 
frequently and indisputably in Greek authors ; as, Plutarch. Brut. 27 péd- 
Aovre aite duaBaivew ... HKev ayyeAia wept THs petaBoArs, and Pomp. 13 ro 
SvAAe zparyn pev HAGev ayyehia. Cf. dvayew zi tux to bring a thing before 
one (notify to), Malal. 3 p. 63; 10 p. 254. 


6. In a wider use the Dative of the thing is employed of every 
thing i reference to which an action. or a state comes to pass. 
Accordingly, it is used 

a. To designate the sphere to which a general predicate is to be 
conceived as confined (cf. Bhdy. 84; Krii. 74) ; as, 1 Cor. xiv. 20 
py Taloia yiverOe Tals Ppeciv, AddAa TH Kaka vyteatere children 
m understanding, children in reference to malice (Plat. Alcib. pr. 
122 c.), Rom. iv. 20 eveduvaywbn 7h miote he grew strong in faith, 229 
Phil. ii. T oxn mare evpeBels ws avOpwrros, iii. 5; Matt. v. [3] 8; 
Minas; Acts vil.O1; xiv.8; xvi. 5; xviii. 2; xx. 22; Rev. iv. 3; 
moor. vii..354; Heb. v.11; xi. 12; xii.8; 1 Pet. iii. 18; v..9 
(Pol. 20, 4,7); Gal. i. 22; Rom. xii. 10f.; Col. ii.5; Eph. iv. 18, 
23 (Mtth. 898; Fr. Rom. III. 68). Such a Dat. is intercalated 
in Eph. ii. 3 jpyev réxva dioer opyhs as respects nature, naturally, 
children of wrath. 

b. Of the rule, or standard, according to which something takes 
place; as, Acts xv. 1 édy pi) repitéuvncbe 7d EOe0 Maiicéws (on 
the other hand, xvii. 2 cata 76 efwOos, and more frequently cata 


1 Yet dye tit (cf. rposdyew tit § 52,4, 14.) is not in all these cases used in a purely 
local or material sense; but rather means introduce to one’s acquaintance. Similarly 
porray tit (to attend one as teacher), different from poitav mpds 7. Epict. ench. 33, 13. 


216 § 31. DATIVE. 


€0os) cf. Xen. C. 1, 2,4; Sext. Emp. 2,6; Strabo 15, 715 (Tob. 
ili. 8; 2 Macc. vi. iby 
ay Of the occasion or cause (on account of); as, Rom. xi. 20 TH 
203 amiotia éexrdcOnoav because of unbelief (cf. 30 nrenOnte TH Tov- 
Tth eb oop dreOela), Gal. vi. 12; Col. i. 21—also of the motive (through, 
JSrom, etc.) 1 Cor. viii. 7 7H cuvedjces Tod eld@dov ws EldwA0OUTOV 
éaOlovot, 2 Cor.i. 15; Rom. iv. 20. See Diog. L. 2, 57; Heliod. 1, 
12, 33; Paus. 8, 7, 3; Joseph. antt. 17, 6,1; cf. Ast, Plat. Polit. 
p. 3892; Goeller, Thuc. p. 157, 184, etc. ; Mtth.894f.; Bhdy. 102f.; 
Kri. 73. 


The use of the Dative in Rev. viii. 4 avéBy 6 Karvos tov Ovprapdrov 
Tats Tposevxats Tov dywy, etc. is more strange, and has given rise to 
numerous conjectures. ‘The simplest translation probably is: there went 
up the smoke of the incense (of the angels) for the prayers, i.e. the ascend- 
194 ing smoke availed for the prayers, to attend and render them more accept- 
bth ed. able (on the representation see Ewald in loc.). Expositors who supplied 
ovv took the same view of the expression. On the other hand the rendering 
inter preces sanctorum is by no means justifiable. — _In 2 Cor. vii. 7 the Dat. 
TO mpdypare is certainly allowable, yet harsh for the language of the N.T.; 
év 7 mpadypate has good authorities in its favor, and the év was probably 
omitted, either because it was absorbed by the etva: or because év wav7l... 

was taken with zpdypart. 


7. In the uses adduced under 6. the Dative of direction, and 
consequently (according to Greek views) the Dative proper, is still 
to be detected more or less clearly; but this case, by a further 
outward extension of its import to whatever accompanies tlie 
action, passes over altogether into the Ablative, 

d. When it designates the mode and manner, as casus modalis 
(Bhdy. 100 f.), 1 Cor. xi. 5 mposevyouévn akataxadhuTT@ TH Kepani 
with the head uncovered, x. 30; Col. ii. 11; Phil.i.18; 2 Pet. ii. 4 
(Jude 6), also Rom. viii. 24 7H édrridv €owOnwev (and Eph. v.19) ;— 
or the instrwment (casus instrumentalis Mdv. 45, yet cf. Kru. 72), 
as 1 Pet. i. 18 od POaptois, apyupio 7) ypucim, éhuTpwOnrte, Gal. 11. 13 
@sTe... cuvaTrnyOn a’tav TH vtoxpice: (2 Pet. ii. 17 cf. Zosim. 5, 
6), Eph. i. 18; Col. ii. 7; Phil. iii. 3; 1 Cor. ix. 7 tis otpareverat 

230 idious drewviows TroTé with his own resources, at his own expense, 
Heb. vi. 17 éuecitevcev dpkw, i. 8; Rom. xv. 18, — likewise Acts 
i. 5 éBarticev Voate (xi. 16), Jno. xxi..8 T@ TWAoLapio FAOov, Mark 
vi. 32 (though elsewhere we find €v wdotw, Matt. xiv.13; Acts xxviii. 
11; D.S.19, 54), Acts xii. 2; Rom. i. 20; ili. 24 ; Tit. iii. 7; Eph. 
v.19,etc. To this head may also be referred Heb. xii. 18 dpos xexav- 


Tay r= 


§ 31. DATIVE. 217 


pévov wupi igni ardens, burning in, with, fire, (Exod. iii. 2; Deut. 
iv. 11; ix.15; cf. Lob. Paralip. p. 523 sq.). In Rom. xii. 12 77 
éxmide xaipovtes is through (in) hope rejoicing. In reference to 
denoer in 2 Cor. ix. 14 I now agree with Mey. We often find é or 
dua (especially of persons) used for the instrumental Dative ; as, 
Rom. xv. 18; 2 Cor. xi. 28, 26 f. 


A yirtual Ablative will be perceived also in peOvoxecOat otvw Eph. v. 18 
(Prov. iv. 17), and in wAnpoteGait tut Rom. i. 29; 2 Cor. vii. 4 (Eurip. 204 
Here. fur. 372, cf. rAjpys twé Eurip. Bacch. 18 —oftener with the Gen. — ‘th él. 
Bhdy. 168, in later writers tAnoGerres ayvoia Malal. p.54). (But in Eph. 

iii. 19 cis with the Acc. is not used for the Ablative. The preposition ex- 
presses rather: filled up to the fulness, etc.) 


8. In all these (6a. et seq.) relations, however, prepositions are 
not rarely and sometimes even more usually employed, — both in 
Greek prose, and still more in N. T. Greek, — with or without a 
modification of the meaning; viz. 

For a. év, 1 Pet. iv. 1 €v capxi wa0oy in connection with capxi 
mwaé., Tit. 1.13 cf. 11.25; dcahéperv ev revs 1 Cor. xv. 41 (Soph. Oed. 
C. 1112 ; Dion. H. ep. p. 225. Krii. ). 

For b. cata, as almost always cata 70 €os, ciwObs Luke iv. 16; 
Acts xvii. 2. 

For c. dia with the Acc. see § 49 ¢. p. 398 sq. 

For d. da or év also werd. Thus we find instead of Bamrik- 
oat voaTe usually év bdare (in water) Matt. iii. 11; Jno. i. 26, 31 
(but also év mvevpare), for Bia always peta Bias Acts v. 26; xxiv. 
7; for wiore: also Ova tiotews, etc. But in Eph. ii. 8 7H yapere 
€oTe cecwopevor dia THs TloTews and Rom. iii. 24 the Dat. expresses 
the motive, ova micr. the subjective means ; and in 2 Pet. ili. 5 da 
refers to the material means, the Dat. to the immaterial. For 
mavtt tpo7@ Phil. i. 18 we find év travtl tporm 2 Thess. iii. 16. 
On the other hand, in 2 Pet. ii. 8 the Dat. is used of the means, 
and év denotes the state (the disposition). 


When, however, N. T. expositors took é simply for a nota dativi (ef. 195 
Blomfield, Aeschyl. Agam. 1425, and Eurip. Med. p. 628), even where a, bith ed. 
Dative proper (not an Ablative) is required, they went too far, and their 
opinion could not find even a remote support in the Hebrew idiom. Most 231 
of the passages quoted are plausible only because in such connection else- 
where the Dative of a person is commonly employed (cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 115 
iii. 1; 1.18), but in reality they are quite irrelevant. In Acts iv, 12 
dedopévov év dvOpuros is most certainly: given (promulged) among men, 

28 


218 § 31, DATIVE. 


cf. 2 Cor. viii. 1;! Gal. i. 16 doxadvwar Tov vidv abrod év éuot to reveal his 
son in me (év TO wvevtpart pov); 1 Jno. iv. 9 épavepwhn 7 ayarn Tod Oeod 
ev 70v, the love of God was manifested 7 (respect to, on) us which differs 
unquestionably from to ws; 1 Cor. xiv. 11 6 Aad@y év éwot BapBapos ac- 
cording to me, in my estimation (meo judicio, cf. Jacobs, Athen. p. 183 ; 
Déderlein, Oed. Col. p. 529; Wex, Soph. Antig. v. 549); 1 Cor. ii. 6 codiay 
Aadotpev ev Tots TeAetors Means: among or with, before, (coram see Plat. 
symp. 175 e., frequently in the orators § 48a.) them that are perfect, etc. 
(i.e. when we have to deal with such) cf. Judith vi. 2. Baumgarten has 
in the main correctly explained 2 Cor. iv. 3. év rots daoAAvpevois eo KeKa- 

205 Avppevov: ts hid in (among, with) them that perish. On 6pioroyeiv &v Tut 

ith ed. see § 82,3 b. Acts xiii. 15 and Col. ii. 13 require no explanation, and Eph. 
ii. 5 vexpovs Tois TaparTwHpact is not grammatically parallel to the last 
passage. In Eph. i. 20 évypyynoev év XpiorG is quite regular: (power) which 
he exhibited in Christ (by raising him from the dead). Matt. xvii. 12 
éroingay év aiT@® oaa 7OéAnoay (Mark ix. 13 ézoincay aire) is: they did, 
perpetrated on him, cf. Mark xiv. 6; Jno. xiv.30; Luke xxiii. 31; 1 Cor. 
ix. 15 (Gen. xl. 14; Judith vii. 24). Likewise correct is the expression 
2 Cor. x. 12 perpeiv éavrods év éavrots: measuring themselves on (with) 
themselves, though in Greek authors the Dative alone is in use, Aristot. 
rhet. 2, 12; Herod. 1, 6, 2. : 


9. Time, as that substratum with which all events are connected, 
is expressed by the Dative in answer to the question When; 
whether it denotes, 

a. A space of time; as, Luke viii. 29 srodAois ypévous cuvnprraxet 
avtov within (during) along time, Acts vill. 11; xiii. 20; Rom. 
xvi. 25; Jno. ii. 20 (not Eph. iii. 5); cf. Joseph. antt. 1, 8, 5 76 
‘dwp nuépais tTecoapakovta draws Katepépeto, Soph. Trach. 599 
paxp@ xpovm, Aeschin. ep. 1. p. 121 ¢.; Diod. 8. 19, 93. 

b. Or (more frequently) a point of time, at which something takes 
place ;—and that, too, in words that directly signify the notion of 
time or a division of time (with a numeral or Genitive annexed, 
196 Krii. 57), as Luke xii. 20 radrn 7h vueri, Mark vi. 21 “Hpedns trois 
ie yeveciows avtod Seimvov éroince, Matt. [xiv. 6 yeveoiows yevomévoss 
according to Lachmann’s reading, sustained also by Cod. Sinait.] 
xx. 19 7H Tpitn Hepa dvaotyocerat, xxvi. 17; Luke xiii. 16; Acts 
932 vii. 8; xii. 21; xxi. 26; xxii. 18; xxvii. 23, or in names of festivals 
(Wannowski, p. 86) Luke xiil. 14 76 caBBdtw éOeparrevce (xiv. 1), 
Matt. xii. 1 tots cadBBact etc. Cf. Plat. conv. 174 a.; Mdy. 48. 

1 So also in Diog. L.1, 105 ri éorw ev dvOpmmois ayabdy Te Kal haddoy, where, too, 


the Latin translator has: quidnam esset hominibus bonum ete. Cf. besides, Fabric. 
Pseudepigr. I. 628 dovAevoovow év Tots éxOpois avta@y, Arrian. Epict. 1, 18, 8. 


§ 31. DATIVE. _ 219 


Yet év is inserted, regularly in the last case, and frequently also 
in the first (especially with écydrn uépa or jpépa Tis Kpicews ), 
even in Luke (iii. 1; i. 26), cf. Krii. 57; the expression 77 éoprf 
or tats éoptais without év is rare even in Greek authors (Wan- 
nowski, 88). 


The Dative of place is not deeply rooted in the N.T. Before names 
of cities év is always put; as, év ‘Pay, ev Tipw Acts xvii. 6; xix.1; Rom. 
i. 7; 2 Tim. i. 17; iv. 20, etc. But 680s occasionally dispenses with the 
preposition ; as, Jas. ii. 25 érépa 666 éxBadodoa (where, however, the prepos. 
was hardly necessary) cf. Xen. Cyr. 1, 2, 16, 686 opeverOar 2 Pet. ii. 15; 
Acts xiv. 16 (trop.) cf. Lucian. Tim. 5 666 BadiZew (Fr. Rom. II. 140 sq.), 
arotxely Tots txveor Rom. iv. 12 (Batvew ixveot Plut. Sol. 30), with which 
are to be classed also the figurative expressions op. 7@ dow Acts ix. 31 ; 
xiv. 16; Prov. xxviii. 26 ; 2 Sam. xv. 11; 1 Macc. vi. 238; Bar. i. 18; ii. 10; 
iv. 138; Tob. i. 2; iv. 5 (interchangeably with zop. év 1 Pet. iv. 3, etc.) 
and even zepizarety tots eo. Acts xxi. 21; 2 Cor. xii. 18 ; Gal. v. 16; 
Rom. xiii. 13. Generally, even in Greek prose, the use of the Dativus 206 
localis is very limited ; see Mdy. 48; Poppo, Thue. 1, 143. ith ed. 


10. The Dative (of a person) with Passives instead of t7r6, rapa, 
etc. with the Gen., is but seldom employed (and then usually with 
the Perfect): Luke xxiii. 15 ovdév dEvov Oavatou éoti mempaypevov 
auT® (Isocr. paneg. c. 18). Yet this construction is not entirely 
the same as that with do etc.; it denotes the person not by 
whom something has been done, but to whom what has been done 
belongs (Mdv. 45; Kru. 72; Benseler, Isocr. Evag. p. 13). It is 
used in particular with etpicxec@as 2 Cor. xii. 20; 2 Pet. iii. 14; 
Rom. x. 20 Sept. ; cf. besides Luke xxiv. 85 (Jas. iii. 18) Phil. iv. 5 
(Acts xxiv. 14), also 2 Pet. ii. 19 where @ tis ArtmTat means, by 
what a man is overcome, to what he is inferior, (in classic Greek 
ntTacGai Twos). But in Acts xvi. 9 OPO dpaya TO ITaviXw means 
became visible to him (as often elsewhere o¢@hvai tue appear to 
one). In Jas. ili. T 7H voce tH avOpwrivyn means rather by the 
nature of man (ingeniis hominum). In general, the Dative of a 
thing with Passives (probably also in Rom. xii. 16, see Fr. in loc.) 
is less surprising, as it coincides with the Dative of the means. 
In Heb. iv. 2 tots adxovcacw indicates probably the persons with or 
wm whom the pa) ovyxp. 7H mioter occurred. Lastly, Matt. v. 21 ff. 
€ppn8 tots apyatous should be translated: to them of old time; 
see Tholuck, Bergpr. 158 f. The above use of the Dative (of a 
pers.) after Passives is known likewise in Greek prose, but it is 
especially frequent after participles ; cf. Dem. Olynth. 8, p. 12¢. ; 233 


207 


Tth ed. 


234 


yt § 81. DATIVE. 


Theocrin. 507c.; coron. 824a.; Conon. 731b.; Diog. L. 8, 6; 
Philostr. her. 4, 2. 


Note 1. The Dative in Col. ii. 14 eEadrcipas 76 kal? qyav XElpoypaov Tots 
doypact, is noticeable. Some expositors explain it 6 qv év rots d0ypaocw 
quod constabat placitis (mos.), conformably to Eph. ii. 15 rév vépov rav 
evroA@v év ddypact Karapyyoas — an explanation. correct doubtless as re- 
spects the sense, but at variance with the grammar ; for according to it 
Paul must have written: xepdyp. To €v tots déypact. Now in the first 
place as regards Eph. ii. 15 the expression rév évrohdv év Sdéypact must 
undoubtedly be taken as one idea: commandments in (individual) ordinances, — 
cf. § 20, 2. And in Col., all things considered, déypacx cannot be taken 
otherwise than as closely connected with 7d kai’ jpav yxepdypadov: the 
bond (in force) against us through the ordinances, and Paul perhaps em- 
ployed the word ddyuacx in this passage to bring out the notion with prom- 
inence. Meyer’s explanation: what has been written with commandments 
(Dat. like what has been written with letters), is the more forced, because 
the word xewpdypadov has acquired from usage so distinct and independent 
a meaning that it can scarcely take such a Dative after it, as if equivalent 
to yeypapp.évov. 

Note 2. What Kiihnél remarks on Matt. viii. 1, viz. that Datives absolute 
are sometimes put for Genitives absolute, as xaraBavre aire for karaBavres 
airov, Matt. xxi. 23 eA@ov7e aired for éAPovros adrov, was indeed formerly 
believed, in general, even by scholars (Fischer, Well. IIT. a. p. 391; 
Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. II. 804; Heupel, Mark p. 79). In reality, however, 
all such Datives (at least in the better class of authors, Wannowski, p. 
91 sqq.) may be as easily explained from the nature of the Dative, as the 
Genitive absolute is from the nature of the Genitive ; see Bhdy. 82; Stallb. 
Plat. Protag. 60; Rost, Gr. 712 f. The remark cannot with the slightest 
plausibility be applied to the passages quoted above from the N. 'T., as 
both xataBavre and eAOdvre follow the verb dxodovbety; at the same time 
it must be confessed that the author might also have written: xaraBdyros 
airov jKodovOyncay ait@ oxAot woAdXot, cf. Matt. viii. 28; Mark v. 2 var. 
There is only this peculiarity in these constructions, that in all air@ is 
repeated (because several other words are inserted between the Dative of 
the participle and the governing verb). In the passages quoted by Kypke 
I. 47 from Pausan. and Joseph., either there is simply a pronoun joined 
to the participle, or the pronoun is directly connected with the verb (Joseph. 
antt. 8, 13, 4); accordingly, they do not prove the point in question. 
Even in Acts xxii. 6, 17 the Datives are not properly absolute. In the 
latter passage poe troorpépav7t, precisely as in vs. 6, belongs with éyévero. 
Then follows a quite different construction (with the Genit. absol.): accidit 
mihi reverso, cum precabar in templo, etc. Cf. Paus. 3, 10, 7 and 25, 3. 

Note 3. Two Datives, the one of a person and the other (explaining, 
more closely defining) of a thing, occur in 2 Cor. xii. 7 60 por oxddo!: 


§ 832. ACCUSATIVE. 221 


7H capki a thorn was given me for (in) the flesh (Exod. iv. 9; Gen. xlvii. 24) 
cf. in Homer 8iov of Hvia xepoiv; Reisig, Soph. Oedip. C. 266; Elmsley, 
Kurip. Bacch. p. 49, 80, ed. Lips.; Bornem. Xen. conviv. p. 214; Jacobs, 
Achill. Tat. p. 811; Ast, Plat. lege. p. 278. The two Datives in Eph. iii. 5; 
Rom. vii. 25; Heb. iv. 2; Rev. iv. 3 are of a different nature, and require 
no remark. : 

Note 4. A very singular Dative occurs in 2 Cor. vi. 14 pi) yiveoOe ére- 

polvyovvres &miatots, where some understand civ, while others attribute 198 
this meaning to the Dative itself. But, though the Dat. is sometimes to 6th ed. 
be resolved by with (Reitz, Lucian. VI. 599, Bip.; Mtth. 907; cf. Polyaen. 
8, 28), this is an entirely different case. The apostle seems to have 
expressed himself elliptically, and to have suited the Dative rather to the 
thought than to the words. He evidently means: pa) yiv. Erep. Kat ovTws 
dpotvyourtes (cvlvy.) aricros do not put yourselves into an unsuitable yoke, 
that is, be not united in the same yoke with unbelievers. 


§ 32. ACCUSATIVE. 


1. The Accusative is strictly the Objective Case when joined to 
transitive verbs (active, middle, or deponent); as, xowtew Tv 
Oupav, KoTTecar T. Keharyv, durXdocew T. KHTOV, puNagoeOaL TAS 
évtoAas. It must be remarked, however, that, 

a. Not only in later and especially in Biblical Greek, many 998 
neuter verbs received a transitive (causative) meaning (yaOnrev- Th ed. 
ew Twa § 38, 1.) ; but, 

b. In general, certain classes of verbal notions which we con- 
sider as either entirely or mainly intransitive, were regarded by 
the Greeks as transitive. Such are, 

a. Verbs denoting an affection of the mind ; as, éXectv Matt. ix. 

27; Mark v.19; Phil. ii. 27, etc. (Plato, symp. 173 c.; Ael. 13, 31) 
and oixreipewv Rom. ix. 15, LX X. (Soph. El. 1403 ; Xen. C. 5,4, 32; 
Lucian. abd. 6; Tim. 99), éraucytverOal twa and tu Mark viii. 38; 
Heb. xi. 16; Rom. i. 16 (Plat. Soph. 247 ¢.; cf. aleydver8ar Soph. 235 
Oed. R. 1079; Eurip. lo 1074); the last once takes éwi/, Rom. 
vi. 21 cf. Isocr. permut. 778. On the contrary, ordayyviter Oar is 
regularly construed with éz/, only once does it govern the Gen. 
Matt. xviii. 27, see § 33. "EvrpérecOai twa, to reverence one, Matt. 
xxl. 87; Luke xviii. 2; Heb. xii. 9, is a later construction, from 
the time of Plut.; earlier authors said évrp. tive. 

B. Verbs denoting to treat one well or ill (harm, benefit), or to 
speak well or ul of one: ddcKeiv, Brdrrew, wperciv, AvpatvecOai, 
uBpifew twa (Xen. Hell. 2, 4,17; Lucian. pisc. 6); érnpeatew 


pays § 32. ACCUSATIVE. 


twa (with Dat. pers. Xen. M. 1, 2, 81), Aowdopety twa Jno. ix. 28; 
Mtth. 871, Bracdnpety twa Matt. xxvii. 39; Acts xix. 87; Rev. 
xiii. 6, ete., yet also ets twa Luke xii. 10; cf. Demosth. cor. nav. 
p- 715¢.; Diod. S. 2, 18 and LXX. hist. Drac. 9 (like the Greek 
overdifew els Twa and vBpiew ets rwa Lucian. Tim. 31) and & tw 
2 Pet. ii. 12 (in Greek authors also reps tivos Isocr. permut. 736), 
vedifew twa Matt. v.11 (LXX. cf. Rom. xv. 8) Schaef. Plutarch. 
V. 347 (earlier writers say ovevdig. Twi or els Tuva), Kaxds épeiv Twa 
Acts xxiii. 5 (Plat. Kuthyd. 284e.; D.S. Vat. p. 66), also xata- 
pacBai twa Matt. v. 44; Jas. ii. 9 CWisd. xii. 11; Ecclus. iv. 5, 
etc., with Dative Xen. A. 7,7,48). All these constructions are 
finally grounded on the simple Aeéyeev or etzrety teva, Jno. i. 15; viii. 
27; Phil. iii. 18, ete. (Jud. vii. 4); cf. Hm. Soph. Oed. C. 1404; 
Mtth. Il. 929. On the other hand, we find cadr@s zrovety with the 
199 Dative of a person, Luke vi. 27 (Acts xvi. 28 undev rpdEns ceavt@ 
bth el. kaxov is of another kind, and this, with similar expressions, is fre- 
quent in Greek writers, Lys. accus. Agor. 41; Xen. C. 5, 4, 11; 
5,9, 14; 8, 7, 24), and also ed wovety Mark xiv. 7. In Greek prose 
the Acc. is here always preferred, see Biblioth. Brem. nova I. 277. 
Yet cf. Odyss. 14, 289 Os 67) wodAa Kak’ avOperrocw ewpyer. But 
Tovey twa te to do something to one occurs also in the N. 'T. Matt. 
Xxvii. 22; Mark xv.12. Cf. Aristoph. nub. 258 sq. 
y. “Ouview twa Jas. v. 12 (ovpavoy) swear by, cf. Hos. iv. 15; 
Xen. C. 5, 4, 831; Herod. 2, 10, 3. 
Yet in the N. T. these verbs are not invariably connected with 
the obj. Acc.; many still vary, as in Greek authors, between a 
transitive and a neuter construction: xXaiew with Acc. Matt. ii. 18 
Sept., but éad twa Luke xix. 41; xxiii. 28; mevOetv twa 2 Cor. 
xii. 21, but éad tu Rev. xviill. 11; xowrec@ar teva Luke viii. 52 
209 (Hurip. Troad. 628 ; 1 Mace. ii. 70) and ésé twa Rev. i. 7; xviii. 9; 
ithel. eXSoxetv twa Heb. x. 6, 8 Sept. (Lev. xxvi. 84; Ps. li. 16), usually 
év tit. ’Opview is mostly treated as neuter, and construed with 
kata Twos, Heb. vi. 18, 16 (Amos viii. 14; Zeph.i.5 5; Isa. xlv. 23 ; 
236 Schaef. Long. p. 853) or & tue Matt. v. 34 ff. ; Rev. x. 6 CJer, v. 
2,7; Ps. lxii. 10). But in 2 Cor. i. 11 edyap. (rut) Te occurs for 
evyaptotety (Tw) eri Tt (in a Passive acceptation) ; and in 2 Cor. 
ix. 2; xi. 80 we find cavyao@a with the Acc. of the thing. 


With Jude 15 trav épywy aocBeias adrav dv (2) noéByoav compare Zeph. 
iii. 11 tov éxirndevpatuv cov dv noeByoas Els EE (daeBeiv te Plato, legg. 12, 
941 a. is of another description, Mtth. 923). . 

Tepoupyety, epyacer Gat and europeveo Oar are real transitives, and as lep. 


— 


§ 82. ACCUSATIVE. 223, 


6volav is a proper expression (Palaeph. 5, 3 cf. Acta apocr. 113), so fep. 


70 edayyédwov Rom. xy. 16 in a figurative sense, is quite correct. “Eyo- 


peveoOa has not only an Acc. of the merchandise but an Acc. of a person, 
eum. twa Ezek. xxvii. 21; this in 2 Pet. ii. 3 means: make merchandise 
(gain) ef you. Lastly, with Rey. xviii. 17 dco tiv Oadraccav épyalovras 
compare Appian. Pun. 2; Boisson. Philostr. p.452. Similar is ynv épyag. 
Paus. 6, 10, 1. 

EiayyeAileo@a (of Christian preaching) is employed in the N. T. quite 
like a transitive with the Acc. of a person ; as, Luke iii. 18; Acts vi. 25 ; 
xiv. 21; compare especially evayy. twa te Acts xiii. 832. Yet evayy. tue 
also occurs Luke iv. 18; Rom.i. 15; Gal. iv. 18; 1 Pet. iv. 6. 

Bacxaivew fascinare also is construed with the Acc. Gal. iii. 1. In the 
signification ¢nvidere it has the Dat. (Philostr. epp. 13) Lob. 463. Yet the 
ancient grammarians are not agreed among themselves on the distinction 
between the constructions, see Wetsten. II. 221 sq. Ilapovetvy, which in 
Gr. writers usually governs the Dat. of a person (Aesch. dial. 2,13; Pol. 5, 
4,7), has the Acc. in Acts xxvii. 22. On the other hand, we find in Rey. 

ii. 14 dddoKew ti (var.), as in some later writers; see Schaef. Plut. V. 22. 

DvrdocecGa, to beware of, likewise governs the Acc. in Acts xxi. 25; 

2 Tim. iv. 15 (as frequently in Greek authors, Xen. M. 2, 2, 14; Lucian. 
asin. 4; D.S. 20, 26), as if to observe, keep a watch on, some one for one’s | 
self; on the other hand, in Luke xii. 15 dzé follows it—a construction 
not unknown also to the Greeks (Xen. Cyr. 2, 3, 9). 

In a similar way, dofetoOae to be afraid in reference to something, to 200_ 
fear something (for one’s self) is usually construed with the Acc., but Mth ed. 
sometimes has azo (to be afraid of, sibi ab al. timere) ; as, Matt. x. 28 
pn poBeiobe dxd tov droxtevdvrwv 7d copa... poBynOjre 8% paddov Tov 
duvdpevov, etc. Greek authors say dof. bd twos or rut (yet compare pdBos 
do twos Xen. Cyr. 3, 3, 53; 6, 3,27). PoPetcOar dé is an imitation of 
the Hebrew 72 (or "282) 837 (Jer. i. 8). According to this analogy are 
construed also BAérew aro (praegnanter) Mark viii. 15; xii. 38, and T™pos- 
éxew aro Matt. xvi. 6. On the other hand, Phil. iii. 2 Brérere tH KataTopyy 
etc. observe, keep your eye on (Br€érew te as signifying to beware of, could 
receive no confirmation from ¢@vAdccecOai t1, since the Mid. voice here is 210 
essential). Zo beware is here but a derivative meaning. ith ed 

Pevyew governs the Acc. in a figurative sense in 1 Cor. vi. 18; 2 Tim. 201 
li. 22 (to flee a vice, i.e. to shun); but once it has azo, 1 Cor. x. 14 devyere 
dd THs <idwhoharpe‘as. This last construction is otherwise very usual in 
the N. T. (as in the Sept.), and pevyew did twos means either to flee from 
one in various senses (Jno. x. 5; Rey. ix. 6; Mark xiv. es as. 1Y. 1 D3 
or (including the result of fleeing) to escape Matt. xxiii. 33. In Greek 
authors, pevyew dad occurs only in a strictly local sense, Xen. Cyr. 7, 2, 43 
Mem. 2, 6, 31; Plato, Phaed. 62 d.; Pol. 26, 5, 2. 

On xpijoGai 7 see § 31, 1, i. p. 209 sq. 


224 § 82, ACCUSATIVE. 


The Acc. of the place to which, after verbs of motion, was confined 
in the classics, after the full use of prepositions had been introduced, 
mostly to poetry (Mtth. 747). From the character of the language 
of the N. T., one would expect only a preposition in such a case. 
Even Acts xxvii. 2 wédXovts mreiv Tovs Kata THv "Aciay TOTrOUS 
(where, however, in several good Codd. [Sin. also] eds is inserted) 
forms no exception ; it must be rendered: sail the places along the 
Asiatic coast. In this signification wey is used by the best authors 
(as a strictly transitive verb) with the Acc. (also of places on the 
coast),! cf. Poppo, Thue. 6, 36. 
2. Neuter verbs expressing a feeling or act, frequently take an 
Acc. of a noun which is either from the same root or from one of 
kindred signification. Such nouns, inasmuch as they merely denote 
substantively the notion of the verb, are virtually implied in it. 
They are never annexed, except when the meaning of the verb has 
to be extended (Hm. Soph. Philoct. 281; Eurip. Androm. 220 sq. ; 
Krii. 16 f.) either by an (Objective) Genitive, as 1 Pet. iii. 14 roy 
poBov avtav pn hoBnOjre (Isa. viii. 12), Col. 11.19 adbfer thy 
avénow Tod Oeod (Plat. legg. 10, 910d. aceBeiv avdpav acéPnpa, 
1 Mace. ii. 58 Gyr@cat Grov vouwov, Judith ix. 4); or by means 
of an Adjective, as Matt. ii. 10 éydpnoav yapay peyadnv ofodpa, 
Jno. vii. 24 rHv Sixaiav xpiow Kpivere, 1 Tim. i. 18 wa otpatedy thv 
201 Kady otpateiay (Plutarch. Pomp. 41), Mark iv. 41 époSn@noav 
bh ed. Bo8ov péyav, 1 Tim. vi. 12; 2 Tim. iv.7; Rev. xvii. 6; 1 Pet. iii. 6 

(LXX. Gen. xxvii. 833; Zech. 1.15; Jon.i.10; iv.1,6; Wisd. ix.3). 

This, too, is very common in Greek authors, see Fischer, Well. 

III.1.422sq.; Bhdy.106f.; Ast, Plat. Polit. 316; Weber, Dem. 471, 
238 especially Lob. Paralip. 501 sqq. (Mtth. 744 f., 910f., 941) cf. Plato, 

Protag. 360 b. aicxpods PoBovs poBodvrat, Xen. M. 1, 5, 6 dovdeveww 
211 Sovretav ovdepids Artov aicypdv, Her. 5,119 paynv ewaxéoavto 
ithel. ?>yupyiv (Magnam pugnavimus pugnam Terent. Adelph. 5, 8, 57) 
Plat. Apol. 28 b. rovodrov éritidSevpa érritndevcas, p. 36 c. evepyerety 
Tv peylotnvy evepyeciav, Alciphr. 2, 3 Seirat wou mdoas, Senoets 
Lysias 1; Theomnest. 27 vrodAods 6é Kal dddAovs KLvdUvOUS peP — 
ipav exwdbvevce (Plato, conv. 208¢.), Demosth. Neaer. 517b.; ep. 
p.121b.; Aristot. polit. 3,10; rhet. 2, 5,4; Long. 4, 3; Aeschin. 
ep. 1,121b.; Lucian. asin. 11; Philostr. Apoll. 2,82. Further 
see Georgi, Vind. 199 sqq.; Wetst. IT. 321 (Gesen. Lg. 810). This 


1 Wahl’s parallels from Xen. Hell. 4, 8,6; Pol. 3, 4,10 only confirm the phrase 
mAew Thy Oddacoay, tT weAdyn, Of which instances already existed in 1 Macc.xiii. 29 ; 
Ecclus. xliii. 24. 


§ 32, ACCUSATIVE. 225 


construction occurs with the passive in Rev. xvi. 9 éxavpaticO@ncav 
of dvOperot Kadpa péya (Plato, Huthyd. 275 e. wpercitas THv peyl- 
atnv abéreav, Plutarch. Caes. 55 a.). 


We find the same construction in a relative clause in Jno. xvii. 26 4 
dydan qv nydrnods pe, Eph. ii. 4; Mark x. 38 ro Barricpa 0 eyo Barrilopa 
Barrio Fjva. 


From this must be distinguished the case in which the kindred 
noun denotes the objective result of the action, consequently a 
concrete idea, as dcaOnxnv diatibecOar (Judg. ii. 2), waprupiav 
paptupeiy, wRovToy mAouTeiy (Dan. xi. 2), Wydiowa YnpilecOar, 
duaptavew duaptiay (1 Jno. v. 16), meaning, make a covenant, 
bear a testimony, etc., Ewald, Gr. 595. For here the noun 
does not necessarily require the support of an adjective, etc. (as 
aicypay dpapt. auapravew Soph. Phil. 1249; Plato, Phaed. 113 e. ; 
Lucian. Tim. 112; Dio Chr. 32, 361) cf. Eph. iv. 8 (Sept.) nyya- 
AWTevceV aiyparwolay (Judg. v. 12; 2 Chron. xxviii. 17; Demosth. 
Steph. 2,621b.). Yet constructions of this sort occur, for the 
most part, only through the interposition of a relative clause ; as, 
Jno. v. 32 4) paptupla, iv paptupel mepi euod, 1 Jno. v. 10; Heb. 
viii. 10 airy 9 dvabjen, Hv Svabjocopas (x. 16, but vill. 9 dcaOynenv 
movety), Acts ili. 25; Luke i. 73; 1 Jno. ii. 25; Mark iii. 28; cf. Isocr. 
Aegin. 936; Lucian. paras. 5. That such Hebrew and Greek 
expressions, however, possess greater fulness and vividness than 
our general phrases, make a covenant, bear testimony, there can be 
no doubt. 

Finally, to be separated. altogether from the preceding combina- 
tions are those in which the substantive denotes something object- 
ive and material which exists independently of the action of the 
verb; as, puAdocew puraxas (posts) Xen. A. 2, 6,10; dopov pépew 
Aristoph. av. 191; Aristot. pol. 2,8; Lucian. paras. 43. Compare 
from the N.'T. Luke ii. 8 duddocovtes dudaxas Tis vuKTos, Vili. 5 
Tov oTreipal TOV aTropoy avTovd, Matt. xiii. 80 djoate Seapas pods TO 239 
kataxavaat bind bundles, Matt. vii. 24 dstis @kodounoev TV oiklav 
avtov, Luke vi. 48 cf. also 1 Pet. iv. 2 (dxony axoveww Obad.1). In 
these cases sometimes no different expression can be used (cf. azro- 202 
oTodovs amoarédrew, legatos legare Cic. Vatin. 15, ypdupata ypd- Shed 
dew Dem. Polycl. 710 b.), and the connection of the noun and the 
verb is purely etymological and historical. On the whole phrase- 212 
ology under this head, which is far more diversified in classic ‘tho 
Greek, see Wunder on Lobeck’s Sophocl. Aj. S. 387 ff. 

29 


226 § 32. ACCUSATIVE. 


Akin to this construction is dpxov dpuvivat Luke i. 73 (Demosth. Apat. 
579 ¢.), Brody xpévov 1 Pet. iv. 2 (Giv Biov D.S. exc. Vat. p. 49), dépew 
(zAnyus) wodXds, dAtyas, which further takes an Acc. of a person (cf. Luke 
xii. 47). Cf. Wunder, as above, 86. On Luke ii. 44 7\Oov tpépas 68dv 
they went a day’s yourney, or Acts viii. 39 éxopevero rHv ddov airod (cf. ddov 
Badigew Plut. Coriol. 9; LXX. 1 Sam. vi. 9; Num. xxi. 33; Exod. xiii. 17), 
scarcely any remark is necessary ; yet see Wunder, 41 f. 

Analogous is the construction with the Dative ; as, duveiv guvy peyady 
Acts xvi. 28, and Boay or kpalew dovy pey. Mark xv. 34; Matt. xxvii. 50; 
Acts vii. 60, opxw dprvivar Acts ii. 80, xapa yatpew 1 Thess. ili. 9 (dyaddao Pau 
xape avexhadntw 1 Pet.i. 8), cnptooew puvy peytdn Rev. v. 2 [text. recept. ]; 
also rotw Oavatw nuedAey arobvnocxew Jno. xii. 833; xviii. 82. Cf. Aristot. 
pol. 3, 9; Plut. Coriol.3 (Jonah i.16; Acta apocr. 4) Krii.17 (Bengel, Apoc. 
xviii. 2) cf. § 54, 3, p. 466, 

3. Instead of the Accusative of the object, in many cases a prep- 
osition, €v (a), is said to be used, according to the Hebrew construc- 
tion ; but the passages adduced, when more closely examined, soon 
show the admissibility of the preposition in its proper import: 

a. In Acts xv. 7 6 eos év nuty é&eXeEaTto Sua TOU GTOMATOS pov 
axovoat Ta &Ovn etc., asma is not to be referred to, but & piv 
signifies among us (the Apostles) ; for, in the first place, the sin- 
gular ov is immediately used of Peter, and again, notice is to be 
taken of ta €@vn (as the apostolic field of labor): God made choice 
among us, that the heathen should be instructed through me. See 
also Olshausen in loc. On the Hebrew a sna, which in the Sept. 
is sometimes rendered éxdéy. ev (1 Sam. xvi. 9; 1 Kings viii. 16; 
1 Chron. xxviii. 4; Neh. ix. 7), but which Gesenius has not even 
deemed it necessary to explain, see Ewald, Gr. 605. 

b. “Oporoyetv év Matt. x. 82; Luke xii. 8 to make confession in 
one, i.e. (according to another construction) about one. Bengel 
otherwise. The Hebrew expression by main Ps. xxxil. 5 has not 
quite the same meaning. 

4. Two Accusatives are used, 

240 a. One of a person and the other of a thing (Mtth. 930, 932), 
uniformly after verbs of clothing and wnelothing Jno. xix. 2; Matt. 
xxvil. 28, 51; Mark xv. 17; Rev. xvii. 4, of (feeding and) giving 
to drink Mark ix. 41; 1 Cor. iii. 2,10f anointing Rev. iii. 18 (Heb. 
i. 9), of loading Luke xi. 46, of adjuring (by) Acts xix. 13; 1 Thess. 
v. 27, of reminding (avayipvnoxev) 1 Cor. iv. 1T (Xen. C. 8, 8, 

1 To this class belongs also Wouter Num. xi. 4; Deut. viii. 16; Wisd. xvi. 20, for 


which we find in Jambl. Pyth. 13 poulCew twd tu. On the other hand, in1 Cor. xiii. 3 _ 
Youllew mévra Te imdpxovra means to feed out all my goods, bestow in food. 


et ina =~ 


§ 32. ACCUSATIVE. 227 


37; Her. 6, 140; put avamv. Twa twos Xen. C. 6, 4,13), of teach- 


ing Jno. xiv. 26, of asking and inquiring Matt. vii. 9; Jno. xvi. 25; 208 
1 Pet. iii. 15 (aireiv), Matt. xxi. 24 (Lob. Paralip. 522), Mark iv. 10 She 


(épwrav). On the other hand, evayyediferOar is construed only rf - 


in Acts xiii. 32 with two Accusatives, cf. Heliod. 2,10; Alciphr. 
8,12; Euseb. H. BE. 3,4, var. For xptrtew twa te (Mtth. 937) 
the construction xpvmrrew Te azo Twos is invariably used, Col. 1. 26; 
Luke xviii. 34; xix. 42, or at least indicated. AidacKxew is once 
joined, but according to a somewhat uncertain reading, to ev tw 
of the person, Rev. ii. 14 (as if instructing at a person).’ Other 
and better Codd. have éd/éacxe 76 Bandax, cf. Thilo, Apocr. I. 656 
(> 925 Job xxi. 22). Besides aireiv twa te, we find aitety te Tapa 
or dé twos Acts iii. 2; ix. 2; Matt. xx. 20 (Xen. A. 1, 3, 16). 
Further, ypiew twa with the Dative of the material occurs Acts 
x. 38, as addeidevy uniformly, Mark vi. 13; Jno. xi. 2, ete. ; d7rope 
puynocKkew Twa epi Twos 2 Pet. i. 12, also aepuBarrcoGa ev Rev. 
lll. 53 iv. 4, advecpuévos ev Matt. xi. 8; Luke vil. 25 (Dat. in Plat. 
Protag. 321a.). For adaipetc@ai twa te we find adap. te aro 
twos Luke xvi. 3. 


Heb. ii. 17 itdoxecOou tas dpaprias (cf. Ecclus. xxviii. 5; Dan. ix. 24 
Theodot.) expiare peccata is perhaps to be explained by supposing that the 
expression tAdoxeoOar tov Oedv Tas dpaprias had begun to be used. In 
1 Sam. iii. 14 e&tAacOyoerar ddixia oikov “HXé, the verb is strictly passive. 

The same view essentially may be taken (Mtth. 927, 939; Rost 497 f. 
503) of the Accusative of a pronoun (ri, 70 aird, tavTa) or neuter adjective 
(uéya, etc.), which is joined to many verbs along with the Acc. or Gen. of 
a person (as, PAarrew Luke iv. 35, ddedcty Gal. v. 2 cf. Lucian. Tim. 119, 
aducety Acts xxv. 10; Gal. iv. 12; Philem. 18, pvno@jva 1 Cor. xi. 2) ; there 
is however this difference, that in these instances the use of two Accusa- 
tives was arrested, as it were, in the first stage. So we Germans say : 
jem. etwas, viel u.s.w. fragen, but not on this account: jem. eine Nachricht 
fragen. Hither I refer also Matt. xxvii. 44. Instances of intransitive 
verbs which are construed with such Accusatives of a thing and have 
thus become (to a limited extent) transitives, it is scarcely necessary to 
adduce ; yet see 1 Cor. ix. 25 mavra éykpareverat, Xi. 2; Phil. i. 6; ii. 185 
2 Cor. vii. 14 (cf., however, 1 above) Matt. ix. 14; Rev. v. 4, etc. Fr. 


explains in the same way also Rom. vi. 10 6 dzeGavev and Gal. ii. 20 6 viv 


£@ év capki, see above, § 24, note 3, p. 168. 


1 This construction cannot be certainly established in reference to the Hebrew by 
2 Chron. xvii. 9, MTS va> as this probably means teach in Judah. In Acts vii. 22 
eraidev0n maon copia is not put for macay copiay (cf. Diod. S. 1, 91); but the Dative 
is employed to denote the means of training, whereas éraid. racay copiay would be 
edoctus est (institutus ad) sapientiam. The true reading of the passage, however, is 
probably év 7. copia, cf. Plat. Crito 50 d. 


© 


241 


228 § 82. ACCUSATIVE. 


b. An Ace. of the Subject and of the Predicate (Mtth. 934 f.); 
as, Jno. vi. 15 wa troujowow adtov Bacidéa, Luke xix. 46 tpeis 
auTov (oikov) éroujcate omnjdavoy Ayotav, Heb. i. 2 dv &Onke KAnpor 
vouov (i. 13), Jas. v. 10 dddevypwa Ad Bere THs KaxoTrabelas ... TOS 

214 mpodytas, Heb. xii. 9 tods ths capKos TATEpas elyomev TraLoevTas, 

ithed. Phil. iii. 7 radra (xépdn) Hrynwat Enuiav, 2 Pet iii. 15 tiv Tod Kupiov 
nav paxpoOumlay owrnpiav ryeicOe, Luke i. 59 éxdrovv aito... 
Zayapiav, vs. 53 (Pol. 15, 2, 4). So, in particular, with verbs of 

204 making, naming (appointing), constituting, viewing as, etc., Matt. 

hel. iy, 19; xxii. 48; Jno. v. 115 x. 83; xix. 7; Acts vy.) ole avas oe 
xx. 28; Luke xii.14; Rom. iii. 25; vi. 11; viii. 29; 1 Cor. iv. 9; 
ix.5; 2 Cor. iii. 6; Eph. ii. 14; Phil. ii. 29; Tit. ii. 7; Heb. vii. 28; 
x1. 26; Jas. ii. 5; Rev. xxi. 5; 2 Sam. ii. 5, 18; iii. 15. 

The Ace. of the Predicate (of destination) is, however, sometimes 
annexed with the preposition e’s, — Acts xiii. 22 ayeupev avdtots Tov 
Aavid eis Bactnréa, vii. 21 dveOpewato abtov éavth els viov, for, 
as, a son,' xiii. 47 (ef. also the Passive AoyifecOas eis te Acts xix. 
27; Rom. ii. 26; ix. 8, § 29,3. Note), — or with @s,as 2 Thess. iii. 15 
Kal 4un ws éxOpov (Todrov 14) ayeioGe (> atin). This is a Hebraistic 
construction (Ewald, Gr. 603), and is frequently imitated in the 
Sept., Isa. xlix.6; 2Kingsiv.1; Judith iii. 8; v.11; Gen. xi, 2g5 
xlii. 17; 1 Sam. xv. 11; Esth. ii. 7; iv. 4. What has been ad- 
duced from classic Greek as parallel to: the construction with eis 
is different from it, as the eds of destination in Her. 1, 34 waves 
Totat ypéovtat és woXenov, Or Kurip. Troad. 1201 od yap ets KadXos 
TUyas daiwwrv didwot, or Alciphr. 8, 28. On the other hand, real 
parallels occur in later writers, e.g. Niceph. Constant. p. 51, ed. 
Bonn.: 6.7hs modews amas Sfjpos ... avayopevovow eis Bacthéa 

242 "Aprémor, p. 18 eis yuvatca Sidwpi cor adtnv, Geo. Pachym. I. 349 
THY éxeivou éxyovov AaBav eis yuvatca, Theophan. contin. p. 228 
Keypiaevos eis Bactéa. See, in general, the Index to Pachym., 
Leo Grammat. and Theophan. in the Bonn edition ; Acta apocr. 
p. 71. To the latter mode of expression may also be referred Heb. 
xi. 8 Naw Pav. eis KAnpovoziav, and perhaps Acts vil. 58 ekdBete Tov 
vomov eis StaTtayas ayyérov ye received the law for ordinances 
of angels, i.e. as ordinances of angels, see Bengel in loc. ; yet es 
here may be more easily explained by Matt. xii. 41. In Phil. iv. 16, 
however, the construction eds tiv ypelav pou érréurvare is obviously 
a different thought from 77 ypelav jp. ér., and so does not belong 
here. 


1 On the other hand, cf. Xen. Anab. 4, 5, 24 wéAous eis Saoudy Bacire? Tpepomevous, 
whereas Arrian, Alex. 1, 26,5 tovs trmous, obs Sacudv Bac? erpedev, sce Ellendt, in loc. 


ee. = 


§ 82. ACCUSATIVE. 999 


ot 
Hssentially the same as the preceding constructions are Luke ix. 14 
Katak\ivate avtovs KAiolas ava tevtyKovra (in rows of 50), Mark vi. 39 
eréragev avrois avakNiva ravras cvprdcw. ovuroc.a (in separate parties). 
These Accusatives are most simply understood as predicative. See § 59. 


5. Verbs which in the Active voice govern the Acc. both of a per- 
son and of a thing, retain as is well known the latter in the Passive ; 215 
as, 2 Thess. ii. 15 mapaddces ds 55a Onre, Luke xvi. 19 évedidv- Met 
oxeto Topdupav, Heb. vi. 9; cf. Phil. iii. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 13 (without 
eis!). So also in the constructions considered under 2: Luke xii. 
48 dapyoetar orlyas (cf. dépew twa mrAnyas), Mark x. 38 70 
Barticpa, 5 éyo Barrifopat, BarticOjvar, Rev. xvi. 9 (cf. Lucian. 
Tox. 61; Dion. Hal. IV. 2162, 8). On the other hand, the Pred- 
tcate Acc. passes over into a Nominative: Heb. v. 10 wposayopevGels 205 

. apyvepevs, Matt. v. 9 avrol viol Geod KAnOnoovTa, Jas. iv. 4, 0h ed, 
€xOpos Geod xabictarat. 

Further, the Accusative of the thing is retained by such verbs 
as, in the Active, govern a Dative of the person along with the 
Accusative of a thing, — they being treated when put in the Pas- 
sive altogether like causal verbs; as, Gal. ii. 7 wemioctevpar 70 


- evayyédwov (from miatevo Twi TL, in the Passive rictevopai TL), 1 Cor. 


ix. 17; Rom. ii. 2; 1 Tim. 1.11 ;! see Fischer, Well. III. I. 437; 
Mtth. 946. The same analogy is followed by wrepixeswat Acts xxviii. 


20 Tay Gdvow TavTnv Tepikerwar (from GAvats wepixertal por) Heb. 


v. 2 (d’Orvill. Charit. p. 240; Mtth. 947). Accordingly, in general, 
the Accusative with Passives indicates the more remote object, 
particularly that part of the Subject where the quality denoted by 
the verb resides ; as, 1 Tim. vi. 5 dvehOappévoe tov vodv (as if from 
Siabbelp. twit Tov vodv), 2 Tim. iii. 8; Jno. xi. 44 SeSeuévos rods 243 
mooas Kal Tas yetpas, Phil. i. 11 wemAnpwpévos kaprrov SiKavoc., 2 Cor. 


iil. 18 tv avdtHv cixova petayopphovpcba, Heb. x. 22 f. on which ef. 
Valcken. ad Herod. 7, 39; Hartung, Casus 61. 


Whether Matt. xi. 5 rrwyot etaryyediZovrat, Heb. iv. 2 éopev ediyyyeAucpévor 
(verse 6) cf. 2 Sam. xviii. 31; Joel ii. 32 also come under this rule or should 
be referred to ebayyeAilecOar twa. Tt, remains doubtful ; yet see § 39, 1. 


6. The Accusative employed to denote a material object only in 
a mediate or remote way was by degrees more and more extended, 
and gave rise to elliptical constructions of various sorts, which we 
must resolve by prepositions and the like. This phraseology is 
but slightly used in the N.T. It is mainly in specifications of 


1On the other hand, e.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 34 od« émitpéwerat abt ats Aadeiv, Acts xxvi. 1, 


230 § 32. ACCUSATIVE. 


time and place that the Acc. as an Objective case is still perceptible 
to us; as, Luke xxii. 41 dmeomdcdn ar avtév ase Aiov Born 
he withdrew from them a stone’s cast (as if by his withdrawing 
he made the distance of a stone’s cast), Jno. vi. 19 eknAaxoTes @s 
oTadvlous elkoat Tévte (Mtth. 950), 1 Pet. iv. 2 tov érridourrov ev capkl 
Bidcat ypovov, Jno. li. 12 exe? Eweway ov Todas juépas, Luke i. 75; 
ii..41; xv..29 xx. 9; Jno,a03" v. Oy x12 Ge Matt x 20s 
xiii. 21); Heb. xi. 28; ii1.17; Mdv. 38f. The Acc. is thus in the 
N.'T. commonly employed to denote the duration of time (but in 
Jno. v. 5 ér is governed by éywv, see Mey.) ; sometimes also the 

216 (approximate) point of time, as Jno. iv. 52 éybés @pav EBdounv 

ihel. abjxev avtov o mupetos, Acts x. 3; Rev. iii. 8 (where more fre- 
quently rept with the Acc. is used) Krii. 13 f. 

When the Acc., annexed as a detached word or phrase to other 
words, gives a closer specification as respects sort, number, degree, 
sphere —as Jno. vi. 10 avérecay of avdpes TOV apLtOpov asel 
mevrakioyidios (in number), cf. Isocr. big. 842; Aristot. pol. 2, 8; 
Ptol. 4, 6,54 (many others in Lob. Phryn. p. 864 sq. and Paralip. 
528), Jude 7 tov Guovov TovTows Tporrov éxtropvevoacat, Matt. xxiii. 
37 ov Tporrov Opis émucvvayes, 2 Tim. ili. 8 (Plat. rep. T, 517 ¢. ; 

206 Plut. educ.4,4; 9,18), Acts xviil. 3 oxnvozrovos THy Téyvny (Lucian. 
bthed. asin. 43; Agath.2,46; Acta apocr. p.61)—it resembles most nearly 
the Passive construction under 5.! This accusative, however, is 
very rare in the N. T.; even in Acts xviii. 3 the best Codd. [Sin. 
also] have 7 Téyvy, cf. § 31. On the other hand, a number of 
strictly adverbial Accusatives, which were probably very current 
in the language of conversation, have found their way into the 
244 N.T.; as, uaxpav (afar), warnv (in cassum), axpnv (this moment) 
yet, tiv apynv (Jno. viii. 25), dwpeay, To TéAos (1 Pet. iii. 8), cf. 
§ 54,1. See, in general, Hm. Vig. p. 882sq. To the same class of 
constructions belong also parenthetic phrases, such as Rom. xii. 18 
ef Suvatdv, TO €£ Bev, peta TavTov avOpwTrwy EipnvevovTEs, IX. 5 


(i. 15) Heb. ii. 17; v. 1; Rom. xv. 17;. Mtth. 784; Mdv. 36 f. 


How the Acc. of quality coincides with the Dative has already been 
noticed. Thus 76 épiOud is used for tov dpiOpov. Usually, however, we 
find the Acc. in classic Greek where in the N. T. the Dative is employed ; 
e.g. TO yévos (natione) Xen. Cyr. 4, 6, 2; Herod. 1, 8,2; D.S.1, 4; Arrian. 
Al. 1, 27, 8 and 76 yéver Mark vii. 26; Acts iv. 86 (Palaeph. 6, 2; 11, 2), 
éxivec Gan 7H Wyn Heb. xii. 3 and rv Yo xyv Diod. S. 20, 1, Bpadets rH 
kapdia, Luke xxiv. 25, but Bpadts tov votv Dion. H. de Lys. p. 243 Lips. 


1 On the Hebrew cf. Hwald 591 f. 


§ 82. ACCUSATIVE. 231 


See Krii. 15; Lob. Paralip. 528 (Wetst. N.T. I. 826). In Demosth. ep. 
4p. 118b. we find @pacis rG Bio and pi wodAtrns THY Pvorv side by 
side. For rodrov rov tpérov even Greek prose authors more frequently 
employ kara Totrov Tov Tpo7ov. 

Very extraordinary is the expression od0v Oaddacons in Matt. iv. 15 
(from Isaiah) which is rendered by the way. Passages such as 1 Sam. vi. 9 
ei 600v Spiwy airas mopevoerar (Wunder on Lob. Sophocl. Aj. 41 f) Num. 
xxi. 83; Exod. xiii. 17 (cf. Luke ii. 44), do not authenticate that Acc. 
without government (by a verb), in an address containing Vocatives. 
Such a construction would quite exceed the limits of prose composition 
(Bhdy. 114 f.). What Thiersch p. 145 sq. remarks, is not decisive. Should 
we perhaps read of 600v OaAdoons (oikotvres), With the Sept. ? It is difficult 
to maintain with Mey. that «fde in verse 16 is the governing verb. The 
topographical difficulties of the usual interpretation are not invincible ; 
only we must not, as in the prophet, take zépay rod “Iopdavov as an in- 217 
dependent clause, as that would not apply to this passage in Matthew. _ ith ed. 


7. In some passages the Accusative is said to be used absolutely, 

when on closer examination the grammatical reason for the Acc. 
can be discovered in the structure of the sentence. Thus in Rom. 
Vili. 3 TO advvaToV Tov Vdpov... 0 Beds TOV EavTOD VidV Téubas 
... KaTéxpive THY duaptiav is properly equivalent to Td advv. Tod 
vojwouv emroincev 0 Geos, Téuapas... kal Kataxpivwv ete. (where 
advvarov does not require to be taken in a passive sense) ; this, 
however, may also be a Nominative put at the commencement 
(cf. Wisd. xvi. 17). In Acts xxvi. 3 the Acc. yvoortny dvra is 
undoubtedly to be explained as an anacoluthon, which, when 207 
participles are annexed, is of frequent occurrence ; see § 63, I. 2a. ‘th 
Schwarz, de soloec. p. 94 sq., has adduced nothing altogether of the 245 
same kind. In Luke xxiv. 46f. ede wadety tov Xpiotov ... Kai 
KnpuyOijvar emt TO Ovowate avTod petdvoiay ... apEdpwevov amo 
‘Iepovoadyp, the Acc. (in the construction of the Acc. with the 
Infinitive) is in itself grammatically clear; only the reference of 
ap&duevov is loose: beginning (viz. the knptccwy), or, imperson- 
ally, that i should be begun; cf. Her. 3,91. See besides Kypke 
I. 344 sq. In Rev.i. 20 the Aces. depend on ypdov verse 19, 
as has long been admitted. Lastly, in Rev. xxi. 17 éwétpnoe 70 
TELXOS THS Toews ExaTOV Teccap. THYaV, péTpoV avOpwrov ectc., 
the last words are a loose apposition to the clause éuérp. To Te?yos 
etc.; cf Mtth. 916. Further, cf. Matthiae, Eurip. Med. p. 501 ; 
Hartung, 8. 54; Wannowski, Syntax. anom. p. 128sqq. On an 
Acc. in apposition to a whole clause, as Rom. xii. 1, see § 59, 9. 


982 § 33. CONNECTION OF A VERB (NEUTER) 


33. CONNECTION OF A VERB (NEUTER) WITH ITS DEPENDENT 
NOUN BY MEANS OF PREPOSITIONS. 


A considerable number of verbs, particularly such as denote an 
affection or a tendency of the mind, are connected with their 
predicate by means of a preposition. In this respect the diction 
of the N. T. sometimes accords with classic usage, and sometimes 
displays more of a Hebrew and Oriental tinge. We arrange the 
verbs in question as follows : 

a. Verbs of rejoicing or grieving, which in Greek authors are 
frequently construed with the Dative alone (Fr. Rom. III. 78 sq.), 
take for the most part the preposition émé with the Dat. (ef. Wurm, 
Dinarch. p. 40 sq.), as yatpewv Matt. xviii. 13; Luke i. 14; Acts 
xv. 81; 1 Cor. xiii. 6; Rev. xi. 10 (cf. Xen. 0. 8,4,12; D.S. 19, 
55; Isocr. permut. 788; Arrian. Ind. 35, 8), evdpaivecar Rev. 
xvili. 20 (Hcclus. xvi. 1; 1 Macc. xi. 44; Xen. conv. 7, 5), ova- 
Avtreto Gat Mark iii. 5 (Xen. Mem. 3, 9,8; cf. yarerras hépeww eri 

218 tue Xen. H. 7, 4, 21); but sometimes also ev (Avu7eiv év Jacobs, 
The. Achill. Tat. p. 814), as yatpew Luke x. 20; Phil. i. 18 (Col. i. 24. 
ef. Soph. Trach. 1119), evgpaivec@ar Acts vii. 41, ayadrsao Par 1 Pet. 
i. 6 (but ayadreoOau éwi Xen. Mem. 2, 6, 85; 3, 5, 16). 
Of verbs of being angry, ayavaxrety is construed with wepi (to be 
246 angry on account of some one) Matt. xx. 24; Mark x. 41; but (like 
ayavaxreiy émwt Lucian. abdic. 9; Aphthon. progymn. c. 9 p. 267) 
opyitecOae eri twt Rey. xii. 17; cf. Joseph. bell. jud. 8, 9, 8 (in the 
Sept. even dpylfecbar & tux Judg. il. 14, in later Greek writers 
opyifec Oat kata Twos as Malal. p. 43, 102, 165, etc.). The opposite, 
evooxety, is construed, in imitation of the Hebrew 3 yn and after 
the example of the Sept., with év (to have pleasure 7), whether 
used in reference to persons Matt. iii. 17; Luke iii. 22; 1 Cor. x. 5 
or things 2 Cor. xii. 10; 2 Thess. ii. 12 (@érew ev Col. ii. 18 cf. 1 Sam. 
Xvili. 22?) ; in classic Greek the Dative alone would be sufficient. 
208 ’ApxetcOat, which usually takes a Dative CLukeiii.14; Heb. xiii. 5), 
6th ed. is once, 3 Jno. 10, construed with ézé. 

b. Verbs denoting wonder, amazement, take émi with the Dative ; 
so Oavuatew Mark xii. 17; Luke xx. 26, éxAjooecar Matt. xxii. 
88; Mark i. 22; xi. 18; Luke iv. 32; Acts xiii. 12, which is also 
very common in Greek authors. Oavudfew rept twos Luke ii. 18 
(Ieacus 8, 28 cf. Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 244) or even da te on 
account of something Mark vi. 6, as Aclian. 12,6; 14, 36 @avpaterw 
Twa dia tt. But Cavpafew ev t@ ypovifew Luke i. 21 may mean 


WITH ITS DEPENDENT NOUN, ETC. 233 


during his tarrying; yet cf. Sir. xi. 21. On fevifec@ai tur see 
above, § 31, 1, f. p. 209. 

c. Of verbs signifying to pity, omdayyvifecPas usually takes é7é 
either with the Acc., Matt. xv. 82; Mark vi. 34; viii. 2; ix. 22, 
or with the Dat., Luke vii. 13; Matt. xiv. 14, only once Matt. ix. 36 
it takes wept; but ¢Aeeto@au is used as a transitive, see § 52,1,b.a. 

d. Verbs of relying on, trusting, hoping, boasting, are construed 
with émi, év, els; as, mémowOa eri tie Mark x. 24; Luke xi. 22; 
2 Cor.i. 9 (Agath. 209, 5; 306, 20), éé re or twa Matt. xxvii. 43 ; 
2 Thess. iii. 4, with év Phil. iii. 35 muotevew émi rove Rom. ix. 33 ; 
1 Pet. ii. 6 Sept. (on miotevew eis or ert twa believe on one, see 
above, § 31, 5), édrmifew émi with Dat. Rom. xv. 12; Phil. iv. 10 
(Pol. 1, 82, 6) and with Acc. 1 Tim. v.5; 1 Mace. ii. 61, eds Jno. 
v. 45; 2 Cor. i. 10; 1 Pet. iii. 5; Ecclus. ii. 9 (Herod. 7, 10, 1; 
Joseph. bell. jud. 6, 2,1, 1) els twa édaris Plut. Galba c.19), év 1 Cor. 
xv. 19 (Xen. C.1,4,25; Mem. 4,2, 28; Pol. 1,59, 2 érsida éyew 
&v T.), KavyacOat eri tue Rom. v. 2 (Ps. xviii. 7; Heclus. xxx. 2; 
D. 8S. 16, 70, similarly ceuvvver@ar Diog. L. 2, 71; Isocr. big. p. 
840 and dvowicba Diog. L. 6, 24), more frequently év Rom. ii. 
Piao: Vo; 1 Cor. ii. 21; Gal. vi.13 (Ps. cxlix. 5; Jer. ix. 23), 
but not cara 2 Cor. xi. 18 see Mey. in loc., also not d7rép 2 Cor. 
vii. 14 cf. ix. 2. 

e. Of verbs of sinning, offending against, duapravew is connected 
by eis with the object sinned against, Matt. xviii. 21; Luke xvii. 4; 219 
1 Cor. vi. 18 etc., cf. Soph. Oed. C. 972; Her. 1,138; Isocr. panath. oe 
p. 644; permut. p. 750 and Aegin. p. 920,934; Mr. Anton. 7, 26; 
Wetsten. I. 445; on the other hand, adwaprav. mpds twa Joseph. 
antt. 14, 15, 2, wept twa Isocr. permut. 754 (duapr. rwi 1 Sam. 
xiv. 83; 1 Kings vill. 51, 83; Judg. x. 10). 

f. The verbs apéoxew please, and gdavivas appear (so and so), 
instead of the Dative of the person to whom something gives 
pleasure or appears (in such or such a light), are connected with 
the noun by the Hellenistic preposition évwiov; as, Acts vi. 5 
npecev 0 AOYoS €vwrriovy TavTos Tod TAHOovs (Deut. i. 23), Luke 
xxiv. 11 éfavncav évatriov a’Ttav awsel ARpos Ta pyuata. In the 
Sept. apéoxew occurs also with évavtiov twos Num. xxxvi. 6; Gen. 
xxxiv. 18; 1 Macc. vi. 60. 

g. Of verbs of seeing, Brérrevv is often construed with efs (intwert) 
Jno. xiii. 22; Acts iii. 4, which is. not unknown to classic Greek 
also; see Wahl. ; ~ 


There is properly speaking a redundancy when verbs of following are 
30 


234 § 84, ADJECTIVES. 


construed with the preposition pera or ovv (cf. comitari eum aliquo in Latin 
909 inscriptions), Rev. vi. 8; xiv. 13; see Wetst. N. T. I. 717; Lob. Phryn. 
bth ed. p. 8354; Schaef. Dem. V. 590; Hm. Lucian. p. 178; Krii. 63. The phrase 
Gxo\ovIG éaiaw twos ("5%) Matt. x. 38 (Isa. xlv. 14) is Hebraistic. 
Substantives derived from such verbs are in the same way connected 
with the object by means of prepositions ; as, riots ev Xpior@ Gal. iii. 26; 
Eph. i. 15 etc., rapovaoia zpos tuas Phil. i. 26, OAdbers iép iuav Eph. iii. 13, 
Ghros brép éuov 2 Cor. vii. 7, see Fr. Rom. I. 195, 365 sq. 


§ 34, ADJECTIVES. 


1. Although the two sorts of nouns, substantive and adjective, 
are distinct from each other in thought, yet the latter (including 
participles) enter the sphere of substantives far more abundantly 
in Greek than, for instance, in Latin. This they do whether they 
have or have not the Article, and in every gender; sometimes — 
owing to an original ellipsis, and sometimes without an ellipsis, 

248 by virtue of the Gender, whether masculine or neuter, peculiar to 
them (Krii. 2 f.) ; as, 1) €pnuos (yp), TH emvovcn (npépa), Svo7rerés 
(dyarpa) Acts xix. 35, 76 onpixov (Uhacpa?) Rey. xviii. 12,6 codés, 
o KAérto@v Hph. iv. 28, Baciduxés, 0 dpywv, adddTpLor strangers, Ka- 
xotrovol evil-doers, To ayabov (To mvevpatiKov, uyiKov | Cor. xv.467%). 


On adjectives wnich have become substantives by an ellipsis, see § 64. 
Among expressions relating to persons, as aodds, ot codot, the following 
are characteristic of the N.T.: 6 morés the believer, murroi believers, dy.o1, 
éexXexrol, GuaptwAot Rom. xv. 381; xvi. 2; 1 Cor. vi..2; 2 Cor.. Vi. lee 
i. 15; v.10; 2 Tim. ii. 10; Heb. xii.3; Matt. xxiv. 22; so even with 
an attributive Adjective, Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 2 xAnrots dytous, or with a 

990.) Gen. Rom. viii. 33 ékXcxrot Oecd. In all these cases persons are indicated 

ith ed. to whom the quality in question belongs ; and there is no necessity for 
supplying dvOpwrot (or é5eAgoi). Likewise where 6 ddnOw0s 1 Jno. v. 20 
is used of God, or 6 &ytos rod Oeotd Luke iv. 34 of Christ, or 6 rovnpos of 
the devil, there is no ellipsis of those substantives, but the notion is gram- 
matically complete: the True, the Holy One of God ; and what individual 
is distinctively so called in Biblical diction, must be ascertained from 
other sources. 

2. Especially frequent and diversified are Neuters used substan- 
tively (Krii. 3). Many of these even regularly take the place of 
a substantive derivable (but not always actually existing) from the 
root; and this, not only in reference to things sensible, pécov, éoya- 
Tov, puiKpov, Bpaxvd, orlyov, pavepov, KpuTTOVv, éhatTov, dpaev, etc., 
especially with a preposition (es to wécov Mark iii. 3; Jno. xx. 19, 


§ 34, ADJECTIVES. 235 


peta pixpov Matt. xxvi. 73, év ddtym Acts xxvi. 29, €v 76 davepo 
Matt. vi. 4, ets davepov Mark iv. 22), but also mental and abstract, 
particularly with a Gen. annexed, as Rom. ii. 4 70 ypnatov T. Oeod 
(} xpnorotns), Heb. vi. 17 70 dperaberov Tis Bovdijs, Rom. vill. 3 ; 
ix. 22; 1 Cor.i. 25; 2 Cor. iv. 17; Phil. iii. 8 ro dmepeyov rijs 
yvooews, iv. 5 TO érrvecxes tu@v. Instead of the Gen. another con- 
struction is selected in Rom.i. 1570 car’ €wé rpoPupov (70 rpobvpov 210 
purpose Hur. Iphig. 983). The Plurals of adjectives are regularly bthed 
concretes, and denote whole classes of things (persons) ; as, ta 
opara Kk. aopata Col. i. 16, évrouvpdma and émiyeva Jno. ili. 12; Phil. 
li. 10, ra Babéa Rev. ii. 24, doyaia 2 Cor. v.17. Such adjectives, 
moreover, sometimes are made more specific by the context: thus, 
évroupavia Jno. as above heavenly truths, Phil. ii. 10 heavenly bemgs, 
Eph. ii. 6; iii. 10 heavenly places (i.q. ovpavoi, cf. var. Eph. i. 20) 
etc. In Rom. i. 20 7a dopara rod Oeod the Plural refers to the par- 
tition that follows, 7 re didvos Svvapus Kal Oevdtys, and Philippi has 249 
explained the word more correctly than Fr. (On Eph. vi. 12 wvev- 
MaTiKa THS Tovnpias, see Note 3.) 


The expression 70 doxiuwov THs wicTews in 1 Pet.i. 7 does not come under 
this head, as doxiuov of itself is a substantive, (no adjective doxiutos exists) ; 
further, compare on this passage and on Jas. i. 38, Fr. Priilim. S$. 44. In 
Rom. i. 19, too, 76 ywworov tod Geod is not simply i.g. 7 yvdors 7. O., other- 
wise it would not be easy to see why Paul did not employ % yvéors, so 
usual to him; but the meaning is either what ts known (to mankind) of 
God, or what is knowable (may be known) of (about) God. (In reference 
to the latter meaning of yvwords, which Thol. questioned, see Soph. Oed. 
R. 362; Hm. Plat. rep. 7, 517 b.; Arrian. Epict. 2, 20, 4, cf. Schulthess, 
theol. Annal. 1829, S. 976.) I prefer the former as the simpler. Paul 
is speaking of the objective knowledge, of the sum of that which is known 
of God (from what source see verse 20). This objective yywardv becomes 
subjective, in as far as gavepov éotw év airots. This shows, too, why Paul 
did not use 7 yvaous here. 

The preceding mode of expression, which flows quite simply from the 221° 
nature of the Neuter, is not unknown to the Greeks. The later prose Tth ed. 
authors, in particular adopted it from the technical language of philosophy. 
At the same time, the examples collected by Georgi (Hierocrit. I. 39) 
must be carefully sifted. The following may serve as unquestionable 
parallels: Demosth. Phil. 1. p. 20a. 7d trav Oedv ecipevés, and de fals. leg. 
p- 213 a. 76 dogades airqs, Thuc. 1, 68 7d mordy ris modurelas, 2, 71 7d 
dadeves THs yvouns, Galen. protrept. 2 7d ris téyvys dorarov and 76 Tips 
Pacews edperaxtduorov, Heliod. 2,15, 83 7d trepBddAAov ris Avrys, Plat. 
Phaedr. 240 a.; Strabo 3, 168; Philostr. Ap. 7, 12; D. 8.19, 55; Diog. 





236 § 34, ADJECTIVES. 


L.9, 63. This construction with the participle is especially characteristic 
of Thuc. (and the Byzantines). Cf. Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 253; Niebuhr, 
ind. ad Dexipp. Eunap.and Malch. An abstract noun and neuter adjectives 
in connection occur in Plutarch, Agis 20 7 woAAy etAaBea Kat 7d mpaov Kat 
pirdvOpwrrov. 


3. On the other hand, a notion which should naturally be ex- 
pressed by an adjective as an epithet,! is sometimes, by a change 
911 of construction, brought out by a substantive. Yet the N. T. is 
bth ed. by no means poor in adjectives ; it can show a considerable number 
which do not occur in the (early) Greek authors, and some of 
which have been formed by the apostles themselves (émvotcvos, cap- 
250 Kixos, TvEevpaTiKos, TapEisaKTos, TUpLWOS, akaTaKpLTOS, akpoywviaios, 
avEeTTALTXUVTOS, AUTOKATUKpLTOS, AYELpoTrolnTos, Bpwotpmos, euTdOnTOos, 
EUTEPLOTATOS, LaaYYEOS, KATELOWAOS, KUPLAKOS, TaTrewodpur etc. ). 

This substitution of a substantive for an adjective takes place, 

a. In such a way that the substantive which is the principal word 
stands in the Genitive: 1 Tim. vi. 17 bn HATLKEeVaL eTl TAOUTOU 
adnrétnte not to trust in the uncertainty of riches i.e. in riches 
which are uncertain, Rom. vi. 4 a mets é€v Kawornte Cwns Trepitra- 
THTWpEV, Vil. 6. 

This form of expression, however, is not arbitrary, but is designed 
to give greater prominence to the main idea, which if expressed 
by an adjective would recede more into the background. It is 
rhetorical, therefore, not grammatical. Cf. Zumpt, Lat. Gramm. 8. 
554 and examples from Greek authors in Held, Plut. Timol. p. 368. 

Properly only those passages come under this head in which, to the 
substantive that is followed by a Genitive, a verb is joined which from 
the nature of the case suits rather the substantive in the Genitive, and 
consequently points it out as the principal noun (as, ingemuit corvi stupor, 
or the above éArté. éxt wAovrov ddyAd7yTt). On the other hand, such pas- 
sages as the following are to be decidedly excluded from this class :* Col. 
ii. 5 BrSrwv 7 orepéwpa Hs Tlorews, 2 Cor. iv. 7 wa H irepBody THs dvvdpews 

222. 7 rod Ge0d, Gal. ii. 14 dpOorodety zpos tiv GAnOevay Tod cdayyedtov, il. 5, also 
Ith ol. 2 Thess. ii. 11 wéuret évépyeav wAdvys. In Heb. ix. 2 7 mpolects TOV GpTwv 


1 On the case in which an adjective as a predicate is expressed by means of a substan- 
tive for rhetorical reasons, as in 2 Cor. iii. 9 ef 7 dtakovla THs Karakploews Sdéa, see § 58. 

2 Fr. Rom. I. 367 sq. has objected to this separation, which however he appears to 
have misunderstood. In passages of the second kind the statement is merely logical, 
in those of the first it is rhetorical. When it is said, live according to the truth of the 
Gospel, we are to understand the words in their proper and natural meaning (the truth 
of the Gospel is the rule of life) ; but when it is said, corvi stupor ingemuit, the statement 
is figurative, like, his blood called for vengeance. Cic. N. D. 2, 50, 127 belongs to the 
second class, and foedo odore would be the less exact expression. 


§ 834. ADJECTIVES. : 237 


signifies: the setting before, exposition, of the bread; and in 1 Pet. i. 2 
dywacpos tvevparos, as a glance at the context will show, is not synonymous 
with wvedya ayy. Lastly, the phrase AopBdvew tiv érayyedlay Tod rvev- 
patos in Acts ii. 33; Gal. iii. 14 meays: obtain the promise of the Spirit, 
which happens when the promised blessing itself is received (kopilecOat 
Tv erayyediav), when the promise becomes fulfilment. 


b. Far more frequently so that the noun which expresses a quality 
(mostly moral) stands in the Genitive: Luke iv. 22 rédyou tis 
xapiTos, XVi. 8 oiKovomos THs adiKias, XViil. 6 KpiTHS THs aduKias, 
Col. i. 13 vids THs ayarns, Rev. xill. 3 7 Any) ToD Oavatov mortal 
wound, Rom. i. 26 7a0n atipias, 2 Pet. 11.10; Jas.i. 25; Heb. i. 34 
This, in prose, is a Hebraistic mode of expression, (and is to be 251 
attributed not merely to the want of adjectives in Hebrew, Ewald 212 
572, but to the peculiar vividness of the Oriental languages). 
In the more elevated style, however, there are instances of the same 
construction even in Greek authors, see Erfurdt, Soph. Oed. R. 

826, cf. Pfochen, diatr. p. 29; but the examples in Georgi, Vind. 
p- 214 sqq. are nearly all useless.2_ In later writers it intrudes into 
plain prose, Eustath. Gramm. p. 478. 


If in such expressions a Gen. of a personal pronoun be annexed, it is 
rendered as belonging to the entire idea; as, Heb. i. 3 70 pyyare ris Suvdapews 
avtov by his mighty word, Col. i. 18; Rev. ili. 10; xiii. 3. It is common 
to go still further, and to assert (e.g. Vorst, Hebraism. p. 570 sq.; Storr, 
observ. p. 234 sq.) that when two nouns combined denote one principal 
notion, the demonstrative pronoun also, according to the Hebrew idiom (?), 

° as, Acts v. 20 ra pjpara 228 
ms wns tavrns for tatra these words of life, xiii. 26 6 Aoyos THs TwrTypias Tth ed. 
taurns this doctrine of salvation, Rom. vii. 24 ek tod cwpatros rod Pavarou 


rovrov, cf. the Peschito |Zeko> La Tre —- But this rule (which 
even Bengel has adopted) is imaginary. In Rom. vii. rovrov may have 
been construed with ocwmaros by Paul himself; but it is not without ap- 


agrees grammatically with the governed noun ; 


1 But 2 Thess. i. 7 &yyedo Suvduews abrod are angels of his power, i.e. who serve his 
power. 

2 The Genitive of material does not come under this head. The expression A{@ov 
xpids e.g. was to the Greeks like our ram of stone, and it is only the Latin idiom that 
would require the use of the adjective here. Likewise dcu} edwdlas Phil. iv. 18 (cf. 
Aristot. rhet. 1, 11, 9) is probably fragrance of sweet odor, and not quite equivalent to 
evwdns. That 1 Cor. x. 16 7d morhpioy ris evdoylas and Rom. i. 4 mvedua ayiwotvns 
are not to be explained by the above rule, is now admitted by the best expositors. 
For still more unsatisfactory examples, see Glass. I, 26 sq. 

8 Some attempt to prove this to be a Hebraism by Ezra ix. 14 MENA NIDDINA “ay3, 
where, however, there is no necessity whatever for construing npN with the second 
substantive. 





202 


224 


Tth ed, 


238 § 84, ADJECTIVES. 


propriate sense, if connected with Oavdrov. As the apostle had already 
said much of @avaros (verse 10 ff.), he might naturally refer to it; see 
de Wette in loc. Likewise in Acts xiii. cwrnp “Incots had already been 
expressed in verse 23, and accordingly 6 Aoyos THS Twryplas TavTHs Means: 
the word of this (through Christ effected) salvation. In Acts v. the pronoun 
refers to the salvation which the apostles were then engaged in preaching. 
Even the Hebrew construction, as 1802 °2728 Isa. ii. 20 or -whp jo Ps. 
Ixxxix. 21, which, though according to the rule, is at the same time much | 
more natural as both words are properly one, has not been literally trans- 
lated so in the Sept. Cf. Isa. as above, ra BdeAvypara airod 7a apyupa, 
Deut. i. 41 7a oKxevn Ta Todreutxa adrod, Ps. as above, év eAatw ayiw. In 
fact it is not easy to perceive, how Luke and Paul, in statements so simple, 
came to employ such an irregular construction. What Georgi, Vind. p. 
204 sqq., and Munthe, obs. Acts v. 20, quote from Greek authors, loses all 
plausibility when closely examined (Fr. Exc. 1. ad Mr. p. 771 sq.). 

Note 1. The Hebraism (Gesen. Lehrgeb. 8.661; Vorst, Heb. 282 sq.) 
according to which the Neuter of an adjective is expressed by its Feminine, 
is said to occur in Luke xi. 33 els kpurrnv rifyor. Absurd! kpurry had 
already become a substantive, signifying a covered place or passage, a 
subterraneous receptacle, vault (Athen. 5, 205); and this meaning is quite 
appropriate in the passage. On the other hand, Matt. xxi. 42 (Mark 
xii. 11) rapa kupiov éyévero att (rovrTo), Kat éott Gavpacry (Gavpacrov) 
is a quotation from Ps. exvii. 23; even the Sept., however, may have 
referred the Feminine to cefady ywvias (Wolf, cur. ad h. 1.). 

Note 2. We must here mention another Hebraistic (Vorst, Hebraism. 
467 sqq.) circumlocution (as it is called) for certain concrete adjectives 
when employed as substantives, viz. by the use of vids or réxvov followed 
by a Genitive of the abstract; as, viot drefefas Eph. ii. 2 i.e. the disobedient, 
viot dpwrds Luke xvi. 8; Jno. xii. 86, réxva dwrds Eph. v. 8, réxva dpyfs il. 3, 
réxva braKxons 1 Pet. i. 14, réxva xardpas 2 Pet. ii. 14, 6 vios tis drwActas 
2 Thess. ii. 3. Every one must feel that these expressions are not mere 
circumlocutions, but phrases which bring out the meaning with greater 
vivacity and force. This phraseology is traceable to the vivid imagination 
of Orientals, which even in the realm of ideas represents the most intimate 
relationship (derivation or dependence) under the image of son or child 
(Ecclus. iv.11). Children of disobedience, therefore, are those who belong 
to dmeifea as a child to its mother—those in whom disobedience has 
become predominant and a second nature (compare in Hebrew, Deut. 
iii. 18; xxv. 2; 2 Sam. xii. 5; Ps. lxxxix. 23). (The expressions zatdes 
iatpov, dvaTrnvwv — especially in Lucian — Schaef. Dion. 313, grammatically 
rather resemble viol tév avOpmérwv. Tats or réxvov joined to an abstract 
noun, as in the preceding quotations, neither Schwarz nor Georgi has been 
able to vindicate by any passage from Greek prose. For an instance 
from ecclesiastical authors, see Epiphan. Opp. I. 880 b. of viot tis dAnOw7s 





§ 35. COMPARATIVE. 239 


miorews. Strictly similar phraseology is not to be expected in modern 
European languages; child of death, for instance, is derived from the 
diction of the Bible. In the more elevated style, however, a few such 
expressions are used: every one ?s the offspring of his age. See, in 
general, Steiger on 1 Pet. as above; Gurlitt in Stud. u. Kritik. 1829, 
S. 728f. Of a different nature is 2 Thess. ii. 3 6 avOpwros ris dpaptias — 
not ig. 6 duaprwAos — the man of sin, that is, he who peculiarly belongs 
to sin, the representative of sin, its personification.) 

Note 3. In Eph. vi. 12 the expression 7& zvevjpariud ris movypias is 
peculiar. The Greek idiom to which expositors here refer (see Koppe 
in loc.; Fischer, Weller. III. I. 295), wap@evixol for zap6évor (Lob. Paralip. 
305 sq.), was in the better period merely poetical, and is not quite analogous. 
In the Byzantines, however, we find e.g. 1) irmuxy for 7) trzos (Ducas, p. 18) ; 
and (ra) Sayudvia, which was originally an adjective but which in later. 
Greek is used substantively along with daiuoves, affords in the main a 
proper analogy. A Genitive joined to it e.g. 7a daydvia tod dépos would 
present no difficulty. But in the above passage of Eph. the abstract 
appears to have been purposely chosen as a contrast to pos aia Kat 
capxa: your struggle is not against outward but against spiritual adver- 
saries. If, however, any one is unwilling to take rvevparixa for tvevpara, 


253 


214 


it can only be regarded as a collective Plural, like 7a Ayorpixa in Polyaen. 6th ed 


5, 14 (robber-hordes, from 76 Ayorpixdv the robber class or profession) 
Lob. Phryn. 242, and rendered: the spiritualities of wickedness, wicked 
spiritual powers; see Mey. in loc. 


§ 35. COMPARATIVE. 


1. Degrees of Comparison are expressed exactly as in classical 
Greek; that is, by means of the appropriate form of the adjective, 
that with which the comparison is made being subjoined in the 
Genitive, or, especially when it is a whole clause,? connected by 7: 


995, 


Ino. iv. 12 pr od pelfov ef tod ratpos Hav ; i. 51; xiii. 16; Mark Me 


xii. 381; 1 Cor. i. 25; 1 Tim. v. 8; Heb. xi. 26; Jno. iv. 1 wAeovas 
paOntas trove’ 1) Iwdvyns, 1 Cor. xiv. 5; 1 Jno. iv. 4; Rom. xiii. 11 
€yYUTEpov HuaV 7) cwTHpla 7) OTE ETLaTEVoapev, 2 Pet. ii. 21; 1 Cor. 
ix. 15; Klotz, Devar. 583. After wrelov or édrdtTwv before a 
numeral, 7 is often omitted (Mtth. 1019); so in Acts xxiv. 11 od 
melous eal pot Huépat Sexadvo, iv. 22 ; xxiii. 13; xxv. 6; cf. Ter. Ad. 
2, 1, 46 plus quingentos colaphos infregit mihi. See Lob. Phryn. 
410 sq.; Held, Plut. Aem. p. 261. The contrary in Luke ix. 13. 
1 Cf. in general G.W. Nitzsch de comparativis graccae linguae modis, in his edition 


of Plat. Ion. Lips. 1822, 8vo. 
2 In such a case we find in the Sept. the Genitive of the Infinitive also, Gen. iv. 13. 


204 


Bld 
6th ed. 


226 
Tth ed. 


240 § 35. COMPARATIVE. 


It is sometimes doubtful whether the Genitive following a Comparative 
contains the second member of the comparison, or is altogether independent _ 
of the comparison. In Heb. iii. 3 wAclova tysnv exee TOD otKov ete. it 
is probably most correct to take oixov in the former way ; but 1 Cor. xiii. 13 
peilov tottwv 1} ayarn may be rendered: (greater) the greatest (of) among 
these is love; see No.3. Cf. besides, 1 Cor. xii. 23; Luke vii. 42 (Lucian. 
fug. 6). 

The Comparative is strengthened by annexing: paAdov,' 2 Cor. vii. 13 
mepircorepws padAov (Plato, legg. 6,781 a.), Phil.i. 23 roAA@ padAov kpetacov 
(much more better), and in reference to another comparison, Mark vii. 36 
dgov avrots duecréAAeTO, avTol waddov Tepiaadtepov exnpvacor, see Fr. in loc. ; 
also by ert Heb. vii. 15 repiuooorepov ere karddyAov (still more evident), Phil. 
i. 9; lastly, by wodv, as 2 Cor. viii. 22 woAd ozovdadrepov. All these are 


very common in Greek authors (Krii. 79) : on padAov see Wyttenb. Plut. 


I. 238; Ast, Plat. Phaedr. p. 395; lege. p. 44; Boisson. Aristaen. p. 430 sqq. 
(in Lat. cf. Cic. Pis. 14 mihi... quaevis fuga potiws quam ulla provincia 
esset optatior) ; as to éru cf. Plat. pol. 298 e.; Xen. M. 1, 5, 6; Cyr. 5, 4, 
20; Anab. 1, 9,10, and as to woAv Xen. M. 2, 10, 2; Lucian. Tim. 50. 
In Greek authors sometimes ére woAv are conjoined: Xen. M. 2, 1, 27; 
Oia 654.45 +A Da beets dh, ls 

Also when prepositions are employed after the Comparative they are 
designed to give it additional force ; as, Luke xvi. 8 dpoviswrepov trép 
Tovs viods TOD dwrds, Heb. iv. 12; Judg. xi. 25; xv.2; xviii. 26; Heb. ix. 23 
Kpeltttoot Ovolas rapa tavras, 1.4; ii. 3; xi. 4; xil. 24; Luke iii. 13. 
Compare, in reference to wapa, Thuc. 1. 23 ruxvdrepov mapa Ta ex Tod zply 


xpovov pvnpovevopeva, Dio C. 38, 97. See Hm. Vig. 862. 


2. Instead of the Comparative form, the Positive is used, 

a. With padrov, partly when the Comparative form seemed 
uncouth, partly when more emphasis was required (Krii. 78), Acts 
xx. 35 wakdpioyv éott warrdov Sidovat 7) AapwBavew, 1 Cor. xii. 22 ; 
Gal. iv. 27. 

b. With a preposition following which contains the notion of 
comparison ; as, Philostr. Apol. iii. 19 tapa wdvtas’Ayatous péyas. 
So Luke xiii. 2 duwaptwrol mapa ravtas tovs Tadidatovs (though 
apap., to be sure, has no comparative), Heb. ii. 38. In the Sept. 
mapa and v7ép are often thus used: Exod. xviii. 11; Num. xii. 3; 
Hage. i093 0hKecl iy. 9: ax. ds dloeane ens 

c. With following; as, Aristot. probl. 29, 6 wapaxataOn«nv 


1 Ma@AAoy is not joined to the Superlative, and in 2 Cor. xii. 9 4#8:0ra ody maAdAov 
Kavxhoouat ev Tais aoOeveias ov, the word paddoy belongs to the whole expression 
Hdicta Kavx. etc., rather, then, will I glory most gladly, etc., i.e. than, repining, beseech 
God to remove the ao@ev. (verse 8f.). The word %5:07ra indicates the degree of cavyacOat, 
while ua@AAov forms the antithesis to what precedes. 


§ 35. COMPARATIVE. 241 


aicypov amroatephcat miKpov 1) TOAD Savecodpevov (Held, Plut. Timol. 
317sq.). This, on the whole, is of rare occurrence; but the 
analogous BovAouar or OéX\w 7, malle, became a current phrase, 
Her. 3. 40; Polyb. 18, 5,3; Plut. Alex. 7; Sulla 3. This usage 
may be most simply explained by supposing that 7 (owing to the 
Comparative construction) had come to be regarded as a pro- 
portional particle, presupposing, or to a certain extent directly 
expressing, a comparison ;! cf. Plaut. rud. 4, 4, 70 tacita bona est 
mulier semper quam loquens, Tac. ann. 3, 17. 

Now, in the N. T. we find not merely @é\w 7) 1 Cor. xiv. 19 and 
Avowteret 7 sativus est quam Luke xvii. 2 (Tob. iii. 6), but, as in 


255 


Greek authors (Lys. affect. tyr. 1), this use of # is extended to. 


other connections ; as, Luke xv. 7 yapa ‘€oras eri evi aduaptar@ 
MeTavoovvtt 7) emt évevnkovtaevvéa dixators greater joy than etc., ef. 
Num. xxii. 6 toyver obTos 7) ets. With adjectives we find only a 
single example, but in both relations, Matt. xviil. 8 cadév col éorw 
eiseOeiy eis THY Conv yorov 7) KuANOV, 1) SVO yYeEipas ... ExovTa 
BrnOjva ete. Mark ix. 43, 45. On the other hand, this construc- 
tion is of frequent occurrence in the Sept., Gen. xlix.12; Hos. ii. 7; 
Jon. iv. 8,8; Lam. iv.9; Tob. xii. 8; Ecclus. xxii. 15, and there 
it was suggested by the Hebrew, which also makes the comparison 


follow the adjective in the preposition 72. In Greek authors com- 216 
pare with Luke xvii. (above) S&jv arapdyws cvpdéper 7) TO Tpupar Mth ed. 


etc. Aesop. 121 de Fur. (Tob. vi. 13), in Adject. and Adv. Thue. 
6, 21 atcypov Biacbévtas amedOeiv 7) totepov émipetatréwrrecOas, 
Plut. Pelop. 4 rovrous av op0as x. Sixaiws mposayopevoers TuvapyYoVTas 
 éxetvous, Aesop. 134 de Fur. See d’Orville, Char. p. 538; Boisson. 
Marini Procl. p. 78; Kypke I. 89; I. 228 and Nitsch Lc. p. 71. 


Luke xviii. 14 with the reading xaréBy otros dediuxaupévos ... 7) eKEtVOS, 
would according to the preceding idiom be free from difficulty; cf. Gen. 
XXXVili. 26 dedicaiwrar Odpap 7) ey (only a comparison is not quite suitable 
here). All the better Codd., however, read 7 ydp (see also Matthii, small 
ed., in loc.), which is without a parallel. Yet on Hermann’s theory 
(followed also by Bornem. in loc.) the passage may be perhaps resolved 
thus: this one went away justified ... or (went) then the other etc.? The 
yap must have been annexed, as elsewhere to interrogative words (also to 
i, eg. Xen. C. 8, 8, 40; Soph. Electr. 1212f.), for emphasis. Probably 
the reading in some Codd. jep (which in Jno. xii. 43 does not differ from 7) 


1 The explanation given by Hermann, Vig. 884 and Schaef. ind. Aesop. p. 138, ef. 
Held, Plut. Tim. p. 317, is more artificial. The earlier grammarians supplied uaddov 
before the Positive. 

31 


227 


Tth ed, 


242 § 35. COMPARATIVE. 


256 is rather a correction of # yép than the origin of it. Lchm., Tdf. in his 
first edition, and Mey. read zap’ éxetvoy [so too Cod. Sin.], which would be 
quite free from difficulty (justified beyond i.e. to the neglect of the other). 


3. The Comparative places over against the object compared but 
one thing as comparable, whether this one thing be an individual 
or a complex whole; as, Jno. xiii. 16 ov« éote Soddos peiSwv Tod 
xuplov, V. 20 peifova Trovtwy deiEer avT@ Epya, x. 29. If the Genitive 
annexed denotes al/ things of the same kind, as Mark iv. 31 puxpe- 
TEPOS TAVTWY TOV oTrEepuaTwr, Verse 32; Luke xxi. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 19; 
Eph. ili. 8, it is to be understood of course with the exception of 
the thing compared: smaller than all (other) seeds; and the Com- 
parative may be rendered also by the Superlative: the smallest of 
all seeds. 'This mode of expression occurs also in Greek authors : 
Demosth. falsa leg. 246 b. ravtwv Tov GdXwv xelpw ToXiTHV, Athen. 
3, 247 mavtev Kaprav wperrwotepa, Dio Chr. 3, 89 amdvtwv miba- 


vetepos, see Jacobs, Anthol. III. 247. 


In 1 Cor. xiii. 13 petlwv rovrwv 4 a&yarn the Comparative is not put for 
the Superlative; but the meaning is: the greater of (among) these 1s love, 
and the Comparative is employed because the other two graces were re- 
garded as forming but a single class in contrast with love. 


4, The Comparative is not unfrequently used when the object 

of comparison is not expressly mentioned; Reiz, de accent. inclin. 

p. 54; Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 418, 538; Stallb. Phileb. p. 120 and rep. 
Tease Mth 0st. tae de 

In such cases this may ordinarily be gathered easily from the 

context, Jno. xix. 11; Acts xviii. 20; 1 Cor. vii. 38 (cf. vs. 36 f.) 

xii. 31} Heb. ni. ty vi. 16 six. 11; Jas. 1.13 8 Peta 

expression has become a current phrase, as ot wAe«loves the majority 

917 (in an assembly), Acts xix. 382; xxvii. 18; 1 Cor.ix.19,ctc. But 

shel. sometimes the peculiar force of the Comparative recedes still 

farther from view; in such passages carlier expositors regarded 

the Comparative as put for the Positive! or Superlative: 2 Tim. 

i. 13 Bértvoy od ywooxuers thou knowest better, sc. than I (Lucian. 

pisc. 20 duewov od oicba tadra); Acts xxv. 10 @3 Kal od KddXLOP 

émiywwookes, better than thou art willing to appear to know it 

257 (according to the supposition in verse 9 of his being guilty) ; 2 Cor. 

vili. 17 Hv pev mapaxArAnow edéEato, orrovdaldTeEpos Sé UTdpywv more 

1 In Greek authors also the Comparative is not used for the Positive in sentences 

like Lucian. epp. Sat. 3, 32 7d HSicrov kal cvummworikdtrepov kad icormla, etc., or 


ll ds dy peyadopwrdrepos adtady jy kal Opacitepos, Her. 2, 46 etc. (Heusing. Plut. 
educ. p. 3). Cf. also Heinichen, Euseb. H. E. 1. 210sq. ; Herm. Lucian. conser. hist. p. 284. 





§ 35. COMPARATIVE. 943 


eager sc. than to require an exhortation ; vii. 7 &ste we wadrov 
xaphvat more sc. than for the (mere) arrival of Titus (verse 6), 
ef. verse 13; Acts xxvii. 13 docov maperéyovto tiv Kpnrny nearer 
sc. than (verse 8) it had been possible ; Phil. ii. 28 c7ovdatotépws 
érreuya avrov sc. than I should have done, had you not been made 
uneasy by the news of his illness (verse 26) ; 1. 12 ra kat’ €wé waddov 
els MpOKOTHV TOV evayyediou EAnAVOev more (rather) for the advance- 
ment sc. than, as we feared, for the hinderance; Jno. xiii. 27 6 
Towels Toincov Tayvov more quickly than thou seemest disposed to 
do, hasten the execution, see Liicke in loc. (Senec. Agamn. 965 
citius interea mihi edissere, ubi sit gnatus, cf. ocius Virg. Aen. 8, 
554). In 1 Tim. iii. 14 rayuov (drier EdOetv pds ce TaYLOV) is 
generally rendered as the Positive (év tayee Lehm. is a cor- 
rection), while some take it as equivalent to ws tayiora. The 
meaning is: I write this to thee, hoping (though I hope) to come 
to thee more quickly, sooner i.e. than thou wilt need these instruc- 
tions. ‘The reason of his writing notwithstanding, is contained in 
éav dé Bpadvve etc., cf. verse 15. Heb. xili. 19 that I may be re- 
stored to you sooner (than would be the case without your prayers ) ;+ 
xiii. 23 of he come sooner (than the date of my departure) ; Rom. 
xv. 15 ToApnportepov éypanva byiv more boldly (frankly) se. than, from 
your Christian attainment (verse 14), was necessary. On Mark 
ix. 42 see Fr.inloc. Acts xviii. 26 does not require explanation. 
In 1 Cor. vii. 38 the relation between the Positive cards ove? and 
the Comparative xpetccov wove? is plain from verse 36 f. Likewise 
meptocorépws, so much used by Paul, never occurs without a com- 
parison. Its comparative force is obvious in 2 Cor. i. 12; ii. 4; 
vii. 18; xi. 23; Phil. i. 14; Gal. i. 14; Heb. ii. 1; vi. 17; but in 
1 Thess. ii. 17 wepicc. éorrovddcapev To Tposwmrov byav idety ete., 
the ground of the comparison lies probably in the clause : dopda- 
vobévtes ad’ buov pos Katpov wpas. The being deprived of their 
personal intercourse for a time (which Paul calls being bereaved), 
had made his desire stronger than it would have been had he sus- 


228 
Tth ed, 


tained no such relation to them. In 2 Pet. i. 19 the comparative 218 
force of BeBavotepov can be determined only on hermencutical Bie a 


grounds; but the discordance even of the most recent expositors, 
shows how occult the reference here is. On the other hand, there 
can be little doubt that in 2 Pet. ii. 11 after pedfoves “ than those 
ToAuntat avOdders”’ ought to be supplied. On Eph. iv. 9 see Mey. 


1 Béhme, who expresses the meaning of the passage correctly in his translation, affirms 
nevertheless in his comments : non est comparat. stricte intelligendus. 


258 


244 § 35. COMPARATIVE. 


Acts xvii. 21 Aéyew tu kat dxovew xatvdrepoy is peculiarly characteristic. 
The Comparative indicates that they desired to hear something newer (than 
even what was deemed new), and is well fitted to portray the thirst of 
the Athenians after news. Generally, however, the Greeks employed the 
Comparative (usually vedrepov) in asking the news; thus denoting not 
merely something new (Positive), but something still more fresh than what 

229 had, up to that moment, been. news; Her. 1, 27; Eurip. Orest. 1327; 
‘Ited. Aristoph. av. 254; Theophr. ch. 8,1; Lucian. asin. 41; D. Sic. Exc. Vat. . 
p- 24; Plat. Protag. 310 b. and Euthyphr. c. 1, see Stallb. in loc. 

In Matt. xviii. 1 (Mark ix. 84; Luke ix. 46; xxii. 14) réy adAdov at 
once suggests itself as the ellipsis (uéyworos would have implied three grades 
of four each among the Twelve ; Ramshorn, lat. Gr. 316). In the same 
way, in Matt. xi. 11 6 d€ puxpdrepos év 77H Bacrreia. tr. odp., that is, 6 pxpdrepos 
(7dv) aAAwy (the Comparative appears to be chosen here as corresponding 
to the preceding peifwy), cf. Diog. L. 6,5 epwrnfeis ri pakaptadtepov &v 
évOparos, by, edrvxotvta darofavetv, Bauer, glossar. Theod. 455 ; Boisson. 
Philostr. 491. Other expositors after puxpdrepos understand “Iwdvvev rod 
Barricrod ; see, in general, Mey. Likewise in Acts xvii. 22 xara rav7a 
ds Seratoatpovertépovs tpas Sewpo the particle ws does not appear to 
belong to the Comparative as an intensive, but the passage must be ren- 
dered: In all respects (at every step, as it were) I behold you as more 
religious people (than others are, sc. dAAwy; the Athenians as is well 
known were reputed to be such; see the expositors in loc.). The word 
Gewp was designedly chosen, compare verse 22; and Gewpety os, though 
unusual, can hardly be considered as improper. 

Note 1. When it is asserted that apa&ros is used for the Comparative 
(xpérepos) where only two are spoken of e.g. Rev. xxi. 1 <idov otpavov KO.LVOV 

. 5 yap mp&ros odpavds etc. prius coelum, Heb. x. 9 dvatpet TO TPOTOV, 
iva 7 Sevrepov orjon, Matt. xxi. 36 daeoreev addovs dovAous 7Aclovas TOV 
mpotov, Actsi.1; 1 Cor. xiv. 30, the assertion is true only from a Latin 
point of view, for the Greeks are accustomed, even when there is a distinct 
reference to two only, to employ zpé&ros, devTepos, NOt mpdTEpos, VaTEpos 
(cf. Jacobs, Aclian. anim. IT. 88), just as with us the former, the latter 
belong rather to the language of books than to that of the people. Like- 
wise zpatos with the Genitive, as in Jno. i. 15, 30 aparos prov (cf. Ael. 
anim. 8, 12), and the Adverb xy. 18 zp&rov tpar, is properly not prior me, 
prius vobis ; but the Superlative merely includes the Comparative, as is 
remarked by Hm. on Eurip. Med. ed. Elmsley, p. 349: Graeccos ibi super- 
lativum pro compar. dicere, ubi haec duo simul indicare volunt, et maius 

219 quid esse alio et omnino maximum. Cf. also Fr. Rom. II. 421, not. It 
tthed. 3, an entire mistake when in Luke ii. 2 avrn 7) droypady mparn éyévero 
259 iyepovedovros tis Zuplas Kvpyviov, even recent expositors take zpory for 
mporépa and make the Genitive nyepov. etc. dependent on this Comparative: 
took place before Q. was governor. On this view Luke’s language is not 


~_ 


§ 35. COMPARATIVE. , 945 


only ambiguous (for the rendering: this took place as the first under the 
administration of Q. presents itself as the most obvious and natural), but 
also awkward if not ungrammatical. And Huschke (iiber d. zur Zeit d., 
Geburt J. Chr. gehalt. Census. Bresl. 1840, 8vo.) has not succeeded in 
adducing a really similar construction ; he merely proves (what everybody 
admits) that zparos is followed by the Genitive of a noun. ‘The error of 
Tholuck (Glaubwiirdigk. d. evang. Geschichte, §. 184) in regarding Jer. 280 
xxix. 2 in the Sept. as parallel, has been exposed by Fr., as above. Th ed. 

Note 2. Two Comparatives which are correlative, as in Rom. ix. 12 6 
peilwv dovretoes TO EAGooovn (Sept.), cf. 1 Cor. xii. 22; 2 Cor. xii. 15; Phil. 
i. 25 sq., or joined with a word expressing proportion, as in Heb. i. 4 rocovrw 
KpeltTwv yevomevos dow Stapopwrepov KexAnpovopnkev Ovojia. (X. 25), require 
no explanation. Cf. Xen. C. 7, 5,7; Mem. 1, 4,10; Plato, Apol. 39 d. 

In the N. T. no instance occurs of two Comparatives connected by 7 
(Krii. 77). On the other hand, we find Positives with madXov in 2 Tim. 
iii. 4 didydovor padAov 7) hiroGeou. 

5. Sometimes, in comparative sentences, a part is compared not 
with the corresponding part but with the whole (Bhdy. 432) ; as, 
Jno. v. 86 waptupiav pelfw tod “Iwavvov, witness greater than John, 
that is, greater than that of John; so Her. 2,154 wupapida kai 
oUTOs a7reNelTreTO TOANOY EXdoowW TOD TaTpds, i.e. than that of his 
father ; and Lucian. salt. 78 ta Sv’ oupdrov dawopeva TiatdTepa 
evar TOV wTwv Soxet. There is here no proper ellipsis (as the 
earlier philologists supposed) ; for had the speaker’s thought coin- 
cided exactly with ours, he would have said r%s> rod 7I., rs Tod 
matpos,! etc. Rather must we regard the construction in question 
as a condensed form of expression quite in accordance with the 
genius of the Greek language, and of frequent occurrence, not 
merely with strict Comparatives (Hm. Vig. 717; Schaef. Melet. 
127 ; Mtth. 1016), but also in other comparative sentences ; Franke, 
Demosth. p. 90; Weber, Demosth. ‘p. 399; Fr. Conjectan. I. 1 sqq. 
and Mr. p. 147, see § 63. In Latin, ef. Juven. 3,74 sermo promptus 
et Isaeo torrentior, Cic. ad Brut. 1,12; Orat. 1,44, and in Hebrew, 260 
Isa. lvi. 5 (1 Esdr. iii. 5). Matt. v. 20 dv pi) mepioceton tudv 4 
duxatocvvn Theiov TOV ypaywatéwy ete. may also be explained in 
this way without violence ; (Jesus could speak of a Suxavoc. ypapye., 
for their conduct assumed for itself this title of honor, and was 
looked up to and esteemed by the people as mpsx). On the other 
hand, 1 Cor i. 25 7d wewpdv tod Oeod copatepov tdv avOpadrer, is 

1 Only when seyeral such parallel clauses follow each other is the Article omitted in 


the last; as, Plat. Gorg. 455. 4 t@v Aimévey KaraoKkevh ex THs @cwiorroKaAdous LvuBovajs 
yéyove, TaD ex Tis MeptkAdous, GAN odie x TOY Snutoupyav. Cf. Sicbelis, Pausan. IV. 291. 


246 § 36. SUPERLATIVE. 


220 easily accounted for without the usual (but forced) solution (Pott, 

hel. Heydenreich, Flatt, in loc.) : the foolishness of God is wiser than 
men (are); that is, what appears foolishness in God’s arrange- 
ments isnot only wisdom, but is even wiser than men, outshines 
all the wisdom of men. 


234 § 86. SUPERLATIVE. 
ith ed. | 

1. Instead of the Superlative, we find, in elevated style, one 
instance of the Positive accompanied Ye a generic substantive : 
Luke i. 42 evAoynuévn ov ev yuvarkiv, blessed (art) thow among 
women. This is primarily a Hebrew idiom (Gesen. Le. 692) which 
strictly means: Among women thou art the (only) one that can 
be called blessed, the blessedness of others cannot be compared to 
thine ; hence, with rhetorical emphasis, highly blessed. This is not 
without parallel in Greek poetry (though the passages adduced 
by Kiihnél are not appropriate); as, Hurip. Alcest. 473 3 gira 
yuvaikav (@ pirtata) see Monk in loc., Aristoph. ran. 1081 & ayerrv’ 
avopov, still more Pind. Nem. 3, 80 (140) aleros wxvs év retavols, 
cf. also Himer. orat. 15, 4 of yevvator trav trovev, and Jacobs, Acl. 
anim. II. 400. The case is different in Matt. xxii. 36 wola évtody 
peyarn €v TO voww ; which kind of commandment is great in the law ? 
so that others seem insignificant in comparison, — not precisely the 
greatest, see BCrus. in loc. Likewise in Luke x. 42 7H ayaOnv 
pepida é&er€EaTo, the Positive is not put for the Superlative ; the 
meaning is: She has chosen the good part (in reference to the 
kingdom of heaven; that which alone truly deserves thzs name) ; 
Fr. Conject. I. 19 is in error. Matt. v.19 Os 0 ay roujop ... 
ovTos péyas KANOnceTas Will be called great, a great one, not ex- 
261 actly the greatest (opposed to éAdxucros which precedes.) Cf. Hm. 

Aeschyl. p. 214. , 

2. Of the well-known Hebrew mode of expressing the Super- 
lative, btitp wap, ota tay, only the following examples occur in 
the N. T.: Heb. ix. 8 * (Aeyomwérn) ayia aylwv the most holy place 
(which, however, as it had already assumed the character of a 
standing designation, scarcely comes under this head), Rev. xix. 16 
Bacireds Baciriéwv, xbpios Kkupiwv, the highest king, lord, 1 Tim. vi. 
15. But none of these expressions is a pure Hebraism; in the 
Greek poets also we find such a doubling of adjectives (used sub- 
stantively): Soph. Electr. 849 SeAala Sevralwv, Oed. R. 466 appyr 
appyrwv, Soph. Phil. 65, caxa xaxdv Soph. Oed. C. 1238, see 


§ 86. SUPERLATIVE. 247 


we 


Bhdy. 154; Wex, Antig. I. 316. The phrase Baowrevs Baciréov 
too, is very simple, and more emphatic than 0 péyotos Bacudevs ; 
ef. Aeschyl. suppl. 524 dva& avaxrwy, and, even as a technical 
designation, Theophan. contin. 127, 887 0 dpywv tev apyovtwr. 
See also Hm. Aesch. p. 230; Georgi, vind. 827 and Nova Biblioth. 
Lubec. I. 111 sq. In reference to the kindred expression ot aiaves 
Tov aiwverv, see the passages in the concordance. 

3. What were formerly adduced! as Hebraistic cireumlocutions 
for the Superlative, are for the most part either, 

a. Figurative expressions which appear in all languages (and 
the explanation of which in the present comes under the depart- 
ment of N. T. Rhetoric) ; e.g. Heb. iv. 12 6 Adyos Tod Oeod Topwre- 
pos uTép Tracav pwayatpav dictopov, Matt. xvii. 20 éav éynte trictw 
@s KoKKov owdrrews the least faith, iv. 16 Ka@npeévos ev yopa Kat 
oxida Oavarov in the darkest shadow. Cf. Matt. xxviii. 5; Rev. i. 
Seeexyall. >. Or, 

b. Constructions which have nothing to do with the Superlative ; 
as, Col. ii. 19 avEnois tod Oeod not a divine, i.e. extraordinary, 
increase, but God’s increase, i.e. not merely acceptable to God, but 
produced by God (ef. 1 Cor. iii. 6); 2 Cor. i. 12 &v amdornre Kal 
eihuxpweia Oeod not perfect sincerity, but sincerity which God 
effects, produces ; Jas. v.11 réXos xvpiov not glorious end, but the 
end which the Lord reserved (for Job); Rev. xxi. 11 dus éyouca 
tThv dofav tod Geod not great glory, but simply and strictly the 
glory (splendor) of God; see Ewald in loc.; 1 Thess. iv. 16 cadmiyé 
Geov not great or far-sounding trumpet (cdrAmiyE dwvis peyadns 
Matt. xxiv. 51), but trumpet of God, i.e. trumpet which sounds at 
God’s command, or less restrictedly (as it is without the Article) a 
trumpet as used in the service of God (in heaven) ; so also Rey. 
xv. 2 xi@dpat Tod Oeov harps of God, as they sound in heaven (¢o 
the praise of God), cf. 1 Chron. xyi. 42. 

In Rom. i. 16 dvvayus Oeod means, as expositors have long been 
agreed, the power of God (power in which God works); and there 


-1See, especially, Pasor, Grammat. p. 298sq. The Hebrew mode of expression 
hia) pina is used likewise by the later Greek poets ; see Boisson. Nic. Eugen. p. 134, 
383. Cf. Sept. opddpa opddpa Exod. i. 12; Judith iv. 2. On the Rosetta inscription 
19 we find wéyas kal wéyas. Essentially the same is the expression («ipdv) Soov bcov 
Heb. x. 37 a very little while (Hm. Vig. 726), literally, little how very, how very! In 
Greek authors it occurs with a substantive annexed, as in Aristoph. vesp. 213 écov daoy 
oTiAny as big (that is, as small) as a drop; hence it is used precisely like quantillum. 
The simple écov occurs also with a limiting genitive in Arrian. Indic. 29, 15 ometpovow 
doov Tis xeépns. The passages adduced by Wetst. and Lésner as paralicl do not establish 
3cov dcov, but merely the simple puxpdy dcov. On the other hand, cf. Isa. Xxvi. 20. 


221 
bth ed. 


932 
Tih ed. 


262 


248 § 87. NUMERALS. 


is no ground for charging Bengel with having intended by his 
“magna et gloriosa” to countenance the Hebraism in question. 
He merely gives prominence, in his way, to two qualities which a 
virtus der will exhibit, — referring to 2 Cor. x. 4. Lastly, aatefos 
7@ Oe@ Acts vii. 20, used in reference to Moses, does not express 
the Superlative, so much as intensity rather ; it is to be translated 
jar for (before, in the judgment of) God, that is, to be sure, 
admodum formosus (cf. 2 Cor. x. 4 and Sturz, Zonarae glossae 
sacrae P. II. Grimmae, 1820, 4to. p. 12sqq.). In Hebrew o»nbyd 
and min? "352 are used in precisely the same manner (Gesen. Lg. 

233 695), cf. Gen. x. 9; Jon. ili. 3 (Sept. words peyddn Td Oe). See 

tthe. Fischer, proluss. 231 sqq.; Wolle, de usu et abusu adéijoews nomi- 

Bee num divinor. sacrae, in his comment. de parenthesi sacra, p. 143 sqq. ; 
but the use of the Dative is not, in itself, to be esteemed a Hebraism, 
cf. Heind. Plat. Soph. 356; Ast, Plat. lege. p. 479 a. 


Haab (S. 162) is quite mistaken in maintaining that even the word 
Xpiords, annexed to a substantive, merely gives intensity to its signification, 
e.g. Rom. ix. 1 ; 2 Cor. xi. 10 dA7Geva Xprorod, év Xpior@ the most unques- 
tionable truth. So other expositors would understand Col. ii. 18 6pycxeia 
Tov ayyeAwy as cultus perfectissimus ; cf. 2 Sam. xiv. 20 codva dryyédov. 

Note. The strengthening of the Superlative by tavrwv (Weber, Demosth. 
p- 548) occurs in the N. T. only in Mark xii. 28 porn zavrwv, cf. Aristoph. 
av. 473. 


268 § 37. NUMERALS. 


1. In expressing the day of ‘the week, els is always used for the 
ordinal numeral wpatos, as Matt. xxviil. lets wlav tov caBBator, 
Mark xvi. 2 mpwt tis peas caBRatov, Luke xxiv. 1; Jno. xx. 1, 
19; Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2. The passages which have been 
quoted as analogous from Greek authors, merely prove that eés is 
used of the first member in divisions and enumerations (Weber, 
Demosth. p. 161), when devTepos or adAos, or the like, follows ; as, 
Her. 4,161; Thuc. 4,115; Herod. 6, 5, 2sqq. (Georgi, vindic. 
54 sqq.).4 In this case eis no more stands for mpotos than in 
Latin unus, when followed by alter, tertius, etc., stands for primus 
(cf. also Rev. ix. 12 with xi. 14 and Gal. iv. 24). In the quota- 
tion from Her. 7, 11, 8 eis retains its proper signification, wnus, 
and probably also in Paus. 7, 20, 1, where Sylb. renders it by wna. 

1 Also Foertsch, observ. in Lysiam p. 87, has been able to adduce only passages of this 


kind. On Diog. L. 8, 20 see Lobeck, Aglaopham. p. 429. 
2 Chishull, antiq. asiat. p. 159, translates sig Tis BovAjjs: die concilii prima. 


§ 37. NUMERALS. 249 


The preceding use of the numeral is Hebraistic (Ewald, krit. Gr. 
496 ; on the Talmud, see Wetsten. I. 544; in the Sept. cf. Exod. 
xl. 2; Num. i.1,18; Ezra x. 16 f.; 2 Macc. xv. 36) and has in 
classical Greek a parallel in compound numerals ; as, es Kat TpunKo- 
aotos (Her. 5, 89) one and thirtieth. We, too, use in like manner 
the cardinal numeral in giving the year, page, etc. mainly for 
brevity’s sake, as i the year eighteen, page forty, etc. 


For the cardinal one the Singular of a substantive is sometimes used 
alone; as, Acts xvill. 11 éxaficey éviavtTov Kat phvas e€ (Joseph. antt. 
15, 2, 3), Rev. xii. 14 tpéderas éxet xaypov (but Jas. iv. 13). This, how- 934 
ever, is not an ellipsis (cf. § 26, 1), as the number one is implied in the Tthed. 
Singular. <A similar usage is found in all languages. 


2. In 2 Pet. ii. 5 we find an abbreviated use of the ordinal : 223 
dySoov Noe... ébvrate Noah as eighth, i.e. with seven others. ‘tl et 
In the same way Plat. legge. 3. 695. AaBov thy apyny EBSopos, 
Plutarch. Pelop. c. 13 eis oikiav Sm@b5éxatos KaterOev, Appian. 
Pun. p. 12 (2 Mace. v. 27), ef. also Schaef. Plutarch. V. 57 and 
Demosth. 1. 812. Greek authors usually add avrés; see Kypke 264 
Il. 442; Mtth. 1037. 

8. Cardinals when repeated assume a distributive signification ; 
as, Mark vi. 7 5v0 dv0 ipEato atroctédXew, binos misit, in pairs, 
two and two. Instead of this the Greeks say cata or ava dvo0 (Krii. 
75); the latter! occurs, for instance, in Luke x. 1, and in Mark as 
above in Cod. D as acorrection. This repetition is properly He- 
braistic (see Gesen. Le. 703; cf. Gen. vii. 3, 9, and thence Leo, 
Gramm. p. 11), and the simplest form of expressing distribution, 
cf. Lob. pathol. p. 184. Yet solitary instances of a similar usage 
occur in Greek (poetry), e.g. Aeschyl. Pers. 981 pupa pupia, i.e. 
Kata pupiddas ; and the combination in Mark vi. 39, 40 éératev 
avTois avakNivat TavTas ouLTOTLa TUPTOTLA... aveTECOV 
Tpacltal mpaccaé is analogous. 


The following expressions are singular: dvd eis éxacros Rev. xxi. 21 
and «is xa@ cis (or xaets) Mark xiv. 19; Jno. viii. 9 (like & xa? &), 6 
xa eis Rom. xii. 5 (3 Mace. vy. 34), for which Greek authors, preserving 
the regimen, use xaf éva (1 Cor. xiv. 31; Eph. v. 33). Yet compare ava 
teroapes Plut. Aem. 32 (see, however, Held), ets xafets (Bekker writes 
xaGeis) Cedren. II. 698, 723, efs rap’ cfs Leo, Tact. 7,83 and simply Kcabets 
Theophan. contin. p. 39 and 101, and other quotations from late writers in 


1 For this avd the Syriac version always employs the repeated numeral, e.g. Mark vi. 


40 ava. Exardy {bSo| Lo , Aes Seemed On the other hand, we find in 
Act. apocryph. 92 ava Sto duo. 
32 


250 § 837, NUMERALS. 


Wetst. I. 627, also Intpt. ad Lucian. Soloec. 9. In these phrases the prep- 
osition serves merely as an adverb; Hm. de partic. avp.dsq. A different 
view is taken by Doderlein, Pr. de brachylogia serm. gr. et lat. (Erlang. 
1831, 4to.) p. 10. 


4, The well-known rule, that in combinations of numbers «ai 
is commonly inserted when the smaller number precedes, but 
omitted when the greater precedes (Mtth. 339; cf. the Inscript. in 
Chishull, antiq. asiat. p. 69 sq.) cf. 1 Cor. x. 8; Jno. vi. 19; Acts 
i. 15; vii. 14; xxvii. 87; Rev. iv. 4; xix. 4,1 ought not, partic- 

935 ularly the latter part of it (Schoem. ad Isaeum 332; Krii. 74), to 

ith ed. be taken too strictly ; for there are exceptions to it everywhere, in 
the N.'T. at least several undoubted ones: Jno. il. 20 treroapdxovta 
kai €& éreow (without var.), v.5 tpiudxovta kai oxT@ érn (according 
to preponderating authority), Gal. iii. 17; Luke xiii. 11, 16; Acts 
xiii. 20; Rev. xi. 2. Similar instances again and again occur in 
Greek authors ; as, Her. 8, 1 elxoou kat érra, Thue. 1, 29 é8dopu7)- 

224 xovta Kai 7révte, Dion. Hal. LV. 2090 dydonxovra cat tpets. In Sept. 

oth el. cf. 1 Kings ix. 28; xv. 10, 33; xvi. 23,28; Gen. xi. 13 (in Judg. 

265 x. 4 Tdf. has given in one verse, tpidkovta kai dvo viol and Tpia- 
Kovta SvV0 TrwXoUS ). 

5. When évravm is joined to a cardinal to denote above, more than, 
the cardinal does not stand in the Genitive after évdava, but is put 
in the case which the verb of the sentence requires ; as, Mark xiv. 
5 mpabjvar éravw tpiakociwv Snvapiwv, 1 Cor. xv. 6 abOn érave 
mevtaxoc loi adeAdois. Precisely so (without a case) the Greeks use 
éxatrov Plato, lege. 9, 856 d. ua éXattov déxa ETN yeyovoras (Thue. 
6, 95), wAéov (Paus. 8, 21, 1), epi (Zosim. 2, 30), evs or és (Appian. 
civil. 2,96, but compare Sturz, Lex. Xen. IT. 68), wéype (Aeschin. 
fals. leg. 837 ed. Bremi), d7rép (Plut. virt. mul. 208, Lips. ; Jos. antt. 
18,1,5); see Lob. Phryn. 410sq.; Gieseler in Rosenmiuller’s Repert. 
II. 139 ff.; Sommer in the allg. Schulzeit. 1831, 5. 963. Latin 
constructions such as occisis ad hominum millibus quatuor, Caes. 
b. gall. 2, 33, from the historians, are well enough known. 


Note 1. That the Neuters devrepov, rpirov, etc., signify also the second 
time, the third time, etc., it is superfluous to remark. ‘They are sometimes 
accompanied by todro, as tpirov TotTo epxopar 2 Cor. xiii. 1 this 7s the 
third time I come, or, now I am coming for the third time, cf. Her. 5, 76 
TETUPTOV TOUTO. 

Note 2. For the numeral adverb ézraxis we find the cardinal in Matt. 


1 Three numerals are sometimes found thus combined ; as, Rev. vii. 4 éxardy Teaoapd~ 
kovta Técoapes XiV. 3; xxi. 17; Jno. xxi. 11 Ex. TevTHKovTa Tpets. 


_—— | 


§ 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 251 


xviii. 22 in the formula éws éBdounKovrakis extra seventy times seven (times), 
compare in Sept. Gen. iv. 24 and 234 Ps. cxix. 164 (for nvaze 228) Ewald 
498. Taken strictly it means: seventy times (and) seven, that i is, RTP RIN 
seven times; but this would not suit the passage. Moreover, that éws is 
not to be joined to érrd but to €Bdounx., appears from the preceding éws 
éxraxts. (How variously numeral adverbs are expressed in the Sept. may 
be seen from the following passages: Exod. xxxiv. 23; Deut. xvi. 16; 


2 Kings vi. 10; Neh. vi. 4; 2 Sam. xix. 43.) 


CHAPTER IV. an 
Tth ed. 
THE VERB. 266 


§ 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 


1. As on the one hand the Active voice of transitive verbs not 
infrequently assumes also an intransitive (apparently reflexive) 
signification, so on the other many intransitive verbs have become 225 
transitives (causatives) ;— bth ed 

Sometimes in consequence of composition, as dsaBaivew Heb. xi. 
29, mapépyeo@ar Luke xi. 42 ; and sometimes by simple adaptation, 
as wabnrevewy twa) Matt. xxviii. 19 (OprapBeve tid 2 Cor. ii. 
14 2), Bactrevew twa 1 Sam. viii. 22; 1 Kings i. 43; Isa. vii. 6; 
1 Mace. viii. 13 (Lob. Soph. Aj. 885). See § 32, 1, pp. 221 sqq. 

Those transitive verbs which are frequently or even generally 
employed as intransitive, are restricted to certain classes of mean- 
ings that may be easily gathered from the following examples: 
dye (dywpev let us 20), mapayew Matt. xx. 30; 1 Cor. vii. 31, 
mepiayew Acts xiii. 11, Badrew Acts xxvii. 14 (precipitate itself, 
rush), é7uSadrew Mark iv. 87 (beat into), aTropplrTeww Acts xxvii. 48 
(throw themselves off), «Awew Luke ix. 12 (incline itself, decline), 
exkhivew Rom. xvi. 17, avatédrew, Bractavew, advfédvew (Lob. 
Soph. Aj. p. 89 sq. 382 sqq.), otpéedew Acts vii. 42, PRP PEPE 
Acts vy. 22 (return), and especially émicrtpédew ; éxtpérewv, Tapa- 
dvdovar Mark iv. 29; 1 Pet. ii. 23 (commit, consign one’s self), 
améxew be at a distance, éwéyew Acts xix. 22 (hold one’s self 
back, i.e. stay), dmepéyew, omevdev. In the N.T. dvaxayrrew, 
‘Tpoxomrew are only intransitive. In all these cases (which are 


1 Here belongs also postdrrew tid to commission one, Acta apocr. p. 172. 


952 § 38, ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 


for the most part verbs of motion) the Greeks considered nothing 
as omitted (not even éavrov), but the verb denotes the action 
absolutely: he plunges, Germ. stiirzt, mto the sea, he turns ; where, 
however, as no object is mentioned, the reader can only refer the 
action back to the subject. See, in general, Bos, Ellips. p. 127 sqq.; 
Mtth. 1100 ff; Bhdy. 839 f; Kru. 134 f.; Poppo, Thuc. I. 186; . 
Fr. Mr. p. 188. On écddvae and its compounds in particular, see 
Jacobs, Philostr. p. 863, and on qapéyew Ast, Plat. polit. p. 470; 
Wyttenb. Plut. mor. 1, 405. 


267 Jno. xiii. 2 rod dia BdAov BeBAnkdros eis HV Kapdiav must not be referred 
to this head, whether the received reading or that adopted by Lchm. and 
Tdf. be followed; @adAAew has in any case an Active signification; see 
Kypke. 

937 Many verbs have some of their tenses transitive (causative), and some 

ithe. intransitive. So forne with its compounds (Bttm. II. 207), of which it 
is sufficient to remark, that the lst Aor. Pass. cra6jvor Mark iil. 24 and 
the Ist. Fut. crabjoonat Matt. xii. 25, 46 share the intransitive meaning 
stand, and that in Acts xxvii. 28 the Ist Aor. dvacryjcarres [after which 
vadv or éavrovs is not with Bttm. (Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 41.) 
to be supplied] signifies stood off; (cf. Malal. 2 p. 35 orjcas for otras). In 
Heb. xii. 15 Sept. pvew even in the Pres. is intransitive (Iliad. 6, 149). 

In 1 Pet. ii. 6 wepiéxer €v 7H ypady ts contained (stands) in the Scripture, 
meptéxet appears to have rather a passive than an intransitive signification ; 
cf. Joseph. antt. 11, 4,7; Malal. 9, 216; 18, 449; see Krebs, observ. 198. 

On the impersonal use of certain verbs (in 3d pers. Sing.), as Bpovra, 
Aéyer, Pyoi, see § 58, 9, p. 522. 


226 2. The Middle Voice (of transitive verbs)? refers back the action 
fel. to the acting subject, either 


1See L. Kiister, de yero usu verborum medior. ap. Graecos, and J. Cleric?, diss. de 
*  verbis Graeccor. mediis, both reprinted in the work of Dresig, to which we refer below. 
Hm. emend. rat. p.178; Bhdy. 842 ff. ; Rost, 562 ff. ; Kri. 140 ff. are more philosophic. 
Especially cf. Poppo, Progr. de Graecor. verbis mediis, passivis, deponentibus rite dis- 
cernendis. Fref. a. V. 1827, 4to., and Mehlhorn’s critique on it in Jahn’s Jahrb. 1831, I. 
14 ff.; Sommer in Jahn’s Jahrb. 1831, II. 36 ff.; J. H. Kistemaker, de origine ac vi verbor., 
depon. et medior. gr. ling. in the Classical Journal No. 44 (Dec. 1820), No. 45 (March 
1821). A monograph on this subject in reference to the N. T. is, S. £. Dresigit com- 
mentar. de verbis med. N. T. nune prim. editus cura J. W’. Fischeri. Lips. (1755) 1762, 
8vo. On the whole, however, scholars have hitherto represented too many verbs ‘as 
middle; a great many such verbs, on account of the constant use of their Aorist Passive, 
may be fairly regarded as passive, since in Greek as well as in Latin the passive may 
be used as reflexive. Thus in «ivéouat, éyelpouat, SiaxovetoOa, dyviCerOa, weOvoKer Oat, 
SoypariCerOat (Col. ii. 20), ariud¢ec@a Mr. (Rom. I. 72), cvrxnuaricecOa, the thought 
is undoubtedly passive, not middle, as moveri etc. in Latin. Under this head come 
still more appropriately dpéyec@a (appetitu ferri), BboxerOa pasci, ete.; also alcxtvec Oat. 
Compare, in general, Rost’s preface to the third edition of his Greek Dictionary, p. 9 sq. 
and his Gramm. p. 270. Sommer, as above. 


§ 38, ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 958 


a. Simply as the immediate object, as Novowar I wash myself, 
kpuTrtopuat I conceal myself Jno. vill. 59, arayyopar I hang myself 
Matt. xxvii. 5, wapackevafouar 1 Cor. xiv. 8;1 or, 

b. Mediately, in case the action is done ¢o or in any way for the 268 
subject ; as, Eayopafowa I buy for myself, wpoéyopuat I hold before 
_ myself (Fr. Rom. I. 171), virtowas tas yeipas I wash for myself the 
hands, my hands Mark vii. 3, omdopas thy wayaipay xiv. 47, elsKa- 
Aodpar Acts x. 23 I call in to myself, arwbéopar I push away for 238 
myself (from me). Compare besides wepimovetoOat, xopierOar, ole 
Kataptivec@at, émixadeicba (Ocov) Fr. Rom. I. 408, and the 
following passages: Matt. vi.17; Luke vi. 7; x. 11; Acts v. 2f.; 
Mex Vili. 18)5 xix, 24 xxv. 11;'Gal. iv. 10; ‘1 Pet v.95; 

2 Thess. iii. 14; Heb. x. 5. 

Sometimes a verb is used in the Active voice of material, and in 
the Middle of mental objects; as, catadayBdvew to seize, Kata- 
AapBavecOa to comprehend, avariévar put up, avatiPecOat to pro- 
pound ; probably also dvaSeBawdcGa 1 Tim. i. 7; Tit. iii. 8; ef. 
Aristot. rhet. 2,15. On mpoBrérec@ar see below, 6, p. 258. } 

At other times a new signification grows out of the Middle, as 
meiGouat I persuade myself i.e. obey, arorvopat solvo me i.e. discedo, 
mavopuat I cease, puvrdccopuat twa I guard one in reference to myself 
i.e. I beware of him ;? thoroughly transitive are mapa:todpal te 
(I deprecate something in my own behalf) I decline, aipodpar I 227 
take for myself, I choose, areurdynv te I renounced 2 Cor. iv. 2, oe 
extpeTrowal Tt 1 Tim. vi. 20, dzrodidouai te (1 give away something 
Srom myself) I sell something, aroxpivomwat (I give out a decision 
Jrom myself) I answer, émixarodpar kaicapa Acts xxv. 11 (I call 
upon the emperor in my behalf) I appeal to. So Avtpdw properly 


1 What verbs regularly express this reflexive meaning by the Middle must be learned 
from observation. In many (we should rather say in most, see Rost 563), the reflexive 
sense is never expressed by the Middle, but by the reflexive pronoun éaurdéy etc. sub- 
joined, see Sitm. 122, 2. Thus in Matt. viii. 4 deccvdew éavrdy is used to denote show 
himself, cf. Her. 3, 119; dmonretvew éavtdv is always employed to express kill himself 
(Jno. viii. 22); cf. further, Jno. xxi. 18; 1 Cor. iii. 18; 2 Thess. ii. 4; 1 Jno. i. 8 (in 
contrast with a passive Matt. xxiii. 12; 1 Cor. xi. 31, or an active Luke ix. 25; xxiii. 
35), see Kiister, de verb. med. p. 56. Lexicographers should no longer defer an accu- 
rate investigation of the subject. See also Poppo, as above, p. 2, note; Krii. 146. 

* bvdAdooecOa as a Middle means also sibi (aliquid) custodire (Heind. Plat. Gorg. 
p- 323), and was used of that which one retains in his mind, by Hesiod. op. 263, 561. 
On the other hand, in the sense of (/egem) sibi observare, as in Luke xviii. 21 according 
to the reading of several Codd. (Taira wdvta epvdatduny é« vedrntos), it probably 
does not occur in classical Greek, but frequently in the Sept. Yet in Luke xviii. 21 
the better reading [sustained by Cod. Sin. also] is épvAaka. 


254 § 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 


means I liberate, acting as master; but Avtpoduas I liberate for 
myself another’s captive, Luke xxiv. 21. 


When such Middle verb is construed with the accusative of any thing 
or quality belonging to the subject, the pronoun is sometimes in the N. T. 
added to the substantive; as, Matt. xv. 2 od virrovrat tas XElpas AUTO, 
Rom. ix. 17 drws evdetEwpar év cot rHv dvvapiv pov (in Greek authors 
éexioeikvupas is often so used, Engelhardt, Plat. Lach. p. 9; Schoem. ad 

269 Plutarch. Agid. p. 144), Acts vii. 58 dméOevro 7a india abtSv (where Taf. 
without sufficient authority omits the pronoun), Heb. vi. 17; Eph. ii. 7; 
1 Pet. iv. 19. In such instances the pronoun is redundant, and Greek 
authors usually dispense with it, which the N. T. writers also frequently 
do, as in Acts ix. 39; Mark vii. 3; xiv. 47. 

By the usage under b. is likewise 2 Cor. iii. 18 jets mavres ... tH d0€av 
Kuplov KatomTpiopevot to be explained: as it were s¢b¢ intueri, beholding 
(for ourselves) the glory of the Lord (as in a mirror), like Philo II. 107. 
In Rom. iii. 25 dv zpo€bero & Geds etc., recent expositors have likewise 
taken notice of the Middle; yet Philippi seems to have reached the true 
exposition more nearly than Fr. 


3. Finally, c. the Middle frequently denotes an action that takes 

place by order or with the permission of the subject, —a relation 
239 expressed in German by the auxiliary verb (sich) lassen, and in 
ithe Latin usually by cwrare (cf. Sommer in Seebode, krit. Biblioth. 
1828, II. 733); as, ad:cetc@at to allow one’s self to be wronged, 
and dazroctepetc bas to allow one’s self to be robbed (both in 1 Cor. 

vi. 7), aroypadec Par to allow one’s self to be registered, get enrolled 
Luke ii. 1. Cf. further BamrrifecOar, yapeto@ar, and many others. 
Examples of Middle verbs that in this case, too, assume a new 
and independent transitive signification, are: dave(Zouar pecuniam 
mutuo dandam sibi curare i.e. mutwam sumere Matt. v. 42, prc8od- 

pat allow something to be hired out to one’s self i.e. hive Matt. xx. 1. 


In some Middle verbs the reciprocal meaning is combined with the 
reflexive (Krii. 143) ; as, BovAeverbax to consult with one another Jno. xii. 
10, cvvriGecOa to settle, agree, among themselves Jno. ix. 22, xpiverOar be at 
law, have a lawsuit 1 Cor. vi. 1 (in the quotation from the O. T. in Rom. 
iii. 4 also ?). 

4, Although the import of the Middle is sharply defined and 
peculiar, yet in practice, even among the best Greek authors, the 
forms of the Middle often blend with those of the Passive ; — 
not merely, 

a. That those tenses which have no separate foe in the Middle 
are borrowed from the Passive (the Present, Imperf., Perf., Pluperf., 


§ 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 955 


see Bttm. I. 368), and that the 1st Aor. Passive in several verbs 298 
serves at the same time as Ist Aor. Middle, as in ¢oPetcOas, bthed. 
Koiuacbat, TopeverOa, ayvifecOar (Acts xxi. 24, 26; cf. also § 39, 
2); but 

b. Some tenses peculiar to the Middle assume a Passive signi- 
fication. These are the Future (Monk, Eurip. Hippol. p. 169, 
Lips.; Boisson. Eunap. p. 856; Poppo, Thue. I. I. 192 ; Stallb. Plat. 
Crit. 16 and rep. II. 230; Isocrat. Areopag. ed. Benseler, p. 229; 
Weber, Demosth. p. 353) ;1 and, though far more rarely and, 270 
especially in prose, not beyond question, the Aorist (d’Orville, 
Charit. p. 858; Abresch, Aristaen: p. 178; Mtth. 1107 and ad Eurip. 
Hel. 42; yet cf. Schaef. Gnom. 166; Lob. 820). 

This usage, it has been thought, occurs in the N. T.: Gal. v. 12 
dpedov Kal aTroKoWorvTat of avactatodrTes Duas, yet here the 
Middle affords a very good sense (see my Com. in loc.); 1 Cor. 

x. 2 nal twavtes €Barticavto, which, however, (see Mey.) may be 
very suitably rendered: they all allowed themselves to be baptized 
(the reading €Gamrtic@ncay, which is found in very good Codd. 
[Sin. also], is probably an emendation); the same applies to 1 Cor. 
vi. 11 amedotcacbe. In Acts xv. 22 éxrXe£apévous, even if it were to 
be joined to avépas, would not be equivalent to éxreyfévras (see 
Kiihnol in loc.; Schwarz, Comm. p. 499), but would retain the 
Middle signification: who suffered themselves to be chosen, who 240) 
(voluntarily) accepted the mission; (éxreyOévras would mean: Mh et. 
who were chosen, even without their consent).2 But it is more 
probable that é«refapevous should be referred to admocroro. and 
mpeoBurepo, and translated; after they had chosen from among 
themselves persons ; see Elsner, observ. I. 429. Cf. § 63, I. 1, p. 567. 

5. The Active is sometimes employed in Greek authors where 
the Middle form might have been expected, (Poppo, Thue. I. 1. 185 ; 
Locella, Xen. Eph. p. 233; Bttm. Soph. Philoct. p. 161; Siebelis, 
Pausan. I. 5; Weber, Demosth. 252 sq.). From the N. T., however, 
the following passage has been erroneously referred to this head: 

2 Cor. xi. 20 ef tis twas KatadovAoz if one brings you into bondage 
unto himself (sibi) (Gal. ii. 4, Middle as a var.). The Apostle 
wished to say generally: ¢f he brings you into bondage, makes you 
slaves. He speaks merely of enslavement; to whom and how, 

1 According to Sommer, as above, the Fut. Middle was itself, perhaps, originally 
Passive, and afterwards, on account of its more convenient form, preferred to the Fut. 
Pass. Cf. Rost, 561 f. 


2So perhaps Plutarch, orator. vit. 7 (V. 149, Lips.) miarevodmevos tiv diolknow 
TOV XpNUaTwr. 


256 § 88, ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 


must be gathered from the context. Likewise, in Luke xii. 20 
the Active is used with strict propriety : amavtodow amo cod they 
require of thee (where only the taking away of the yuy7 was to 
be expressed). On the other hand we sometimes find, at least in 
the text. recept., qovetv, where classic Greek authors would have 
employed zroveto Pau! (Kiister, p. 87 sqq. 67 sqq.; Dresig, p. 401 sqq.; 
929 Krii. 141), e.g. cuvmpociay movety Acts xxiii. 18 (Polyb. 1, 70, 6; 
6th el. Herod. 7, 4,7), wovny rovety Jno. xiv. 23 (Thue. 1, 131 and Poppo), 
mpoOecw trovety Hph. ili. 11 ;* but in the first two passages Lchm. 
has restored the Middle. Likewise evpicxeyv is used in the meaning 
of consequt for evpicxec Oat, see Fr. Mt. p. 890.3 
9441 Occasionally the Middle and Active are used interchangeably,* 
ithel. as Like xv. 6 cuyxarel tods didous, vs. 9 cuyxareltar Tas piras ete. 
according to Lchm. (Tdf. has the Active here also) ;° it depended 
here on the writer (Franke, Demosth. p. 95), whether he would 
say, called together to himself, or generally, called together, — the 
latter being perfectly intelligible. Compare also Jas. iv. 2f. ac 
TELTE Kal ov AapPavere, SioTt KaKaS atTeta Ge, 1 Jno. iii. 223 cf. v. 


1In Mark ii. 23 63dv morety (where Codd. vary) is probably not put for éddv moretobat 
Her. 7, 42 (according to mopelav moreto Oat Luke xiii. 22), as the meaning make a journey 
is here rather unsuitable. The translation must be quite literal: they made by plucking 
ears a pathway in the field. Lchm. in accordance with his theory has printed édo7o1eiy, 
after B. 

2The Middle of 7oety seldom occurs in the N. T. (almost exclusively in the Acts 
and Paul’s Epistles), but then it always clearly exhibits a Middle signification. As 
the lexicons do not usually distinguish the Middle and Active, we shall here annex the 
phrases in which the Middle occurs: Acts i. 1 tov mp&tov Adyoy émoinoduny, Vili. 2 error 
qoavto komeTév, XXV.17 avaBoAjy motciobat, XXVil. 18 exBoAhy moeioOat, Rom. i. 9; Eph. 
i. 16; 1 Thess. i. 2; Philem. 4 pvelay tivds motcioOau, 2 Pet. i. 15 pyhuny tivds moreto Oat, 
i. 10 e€xAoyhy tmotetcOa BeBatay, Jude 3 omovdhy moreta Oa, Phil. i. 4; 1 Tim. ii. 1 Sénow 
motetoOat, Rom. xv. 26 kowwviay roeio Oat, Eph. iv. 16 7d cGpya thy avtnow moretra, Heb. 
i. 3 8 éavtod Kabapioudy moinoduevos Tay Guaptia@v. ‘To illustrate Greek usage much 
has been collected by Dresig, p. 422sqq.; see also V. Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 538 sq. 
The distinction between the Act. and the Mid. has been stated by Blume, ad Lycurg. 
p. 55, thus: Est wovety, quotiescunque accusativus substantivi abstracti accedit, aliquid 
efficere, parare, faciendum curare, cause, bring to pass, institute, moreto Oa ipsum facere cum 
substantivis junctum periphrasin facit verbi, quod aut notatione aut certe notione 
nomini apposito conveniat. (On Adyoy moiety and motetoOat, see Weber, Demosth. 
p- 295.) 

3In Jno. v. 5 jv &vOpwros ... tpide. Kad onto ern Exwv ev TH doOevela it cannot be 
said that éxwy is put for éyduevos. Rather might gxew év dodev. be considered as 
equivalent to éxew aobevas (kax@s). But according to verse 6 éywr is probably to be 
joined as transitive to érn. 

4 The distinction between the Active and the Middle is forcibly marked e.g. in Dion. 
H. IV. 2088 rdy te detov dvecwoduny, kal troy orpatomeddpynyv ~owoa. 

5 In the same way along with karaAauBdverbat méruy, etc. (to capture, take possession of), 
katadapuBavew médru is also used ; cf. Schweighduser, Lexic. Polyb. p. 330. 


§38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 257 


14f1 See Mtth. 1096 (Foertsch, Lys. p.39).2 In 1 Cor. ix. 5 wepi- 
dyec@ar might be more appropriate. Iepudyew twa signifies to 272 
lead about for exhibition, or to conduct, 2 Mace. vi. 10; Pol. 12, 4, 230 
14; but to lead about with one (in one’s company), is expressed Sth el 
by wepidyecOa. However, the Active is used perhaps in this sense 

in Xen. C. 2, 2, 28. Moreover, it would not be surprising that 
foreigners, not possessing in such matters the delicate perception of 
native Greeks, should sometimes fail to observe the precise shade 

of meaning conveyed by the Middle voice; particularly as, even 
among natives, its use appears to have often depended on the 
culture and taste of individualewriters. Ka@amrw, an Active alto- 
gether peculiar to the later language (see Passow), stands for the 
Middle in Acts xxviii. 3 (yet not without var.). 


In such cases as Matt. xxvi. 65 dvéppnge ra twdria avrov, Acts xiv. 14, 
the expression deppygaro 7a iwaria might also have been used in Greek, 
see above ; yet the former is not an anomaly, Bhdy. 348. The distinction 
between zrapéxew and zapéyer Ga (Rost, 564; Krii. 141; cf. Kiister, No. 49) 
is not uniformly observed even by the Greeks; yet the suitableness of the 
Middle will be easily recognized in Acts xix. 24; Col. iv. 1; Tit. ii. 7, and 
in Acts xvi. 16 épyactav wodAjv wapetxe Tols Kupiols atras pavrevopern 
the Active is more appropriate than the Middle, as the writer is speaking 
of a gain which the damsel procured actually only, not designedly. 


6. On the other hand, the Middle occurs with éav7é Jno. xix. 24 242 
Scewepicavto éavtois (for which we find in Matt. xxvii. 35 8cewepicavto ™ 
alone), cf. Xen C. 1, 4,18; 2,1,30; Lycurg. 11, 8; 17, 3, and 
with éavtov, instead of the Active with éavrév (Plat. Protag. p. 349a.; 
Blume, Lycurg. p. 90). In Tit. ii. 7 ceavrov wapeydpevos tiTov 
the use of the Middle in the sense of prove one’s self (in any mental 
or moral quality) was so established, that the writer employed it 
even where geavtov (on account of tvov) had to be distinctly 
expressed ; cf. Xen. C. 8, 1, 89 rapadevypa ... rovdvde éavtov Tapel- 
xero. For other examples of the Middle with éav7@, éavrov, see 
Schaef. Dion. Hal. p.88; Bornem. Xen. Anab. 76 sq.; Bhdy. 347; 


1Tn Mark xiv. 47 we find omacduevos thy wdxatpay, but in Matt. xxvi. 51 améomace 
Thy pdxaipay avrTod. 

2 Under this head might be classed also those Actives, accompanied by the reflexive 
pronoun, for which the Middles are also actually in use in a reflexive sense; as, tamevobv 
éavtéy Phil. ii. 8; Matt. xviii. 4 cf. ramwewotoOa Jas. iv. 10 ( Wetst. II. 271), dovdodv 
éavtdv 1 Cor. ix. 19, (wvvdew éavr. Jno. xxi. 18, yuuvdCew éavt. 1 Tim. iv. 7 ete. But 
in all these passages the reflexive pronoun is employed antithetically (Avi. 146), and 
in Jno. xxi. e.g. the Mid. would even be incorrect. So xelpew éavr. would mean, shear 
himself, ketpecOat shear himself. Besides, the Active with éavréy was probably chosen 
where the identity of the Passive and Middle forms would have occasioned ambiguity. 


273 


EL: 
6th ed, 


243 


258 § 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE hte aed 


Mehlhorn, as above, 36; Poppo, Thue. I. I. 189; cf. also Epiphan. 
I. 380 omdodpevos éavtov. In Tit. i. 5 érredsopOeHon, according to 
the received text (where, however, better Codd. have érrudu0pAéons), 
would be exactly equivalent to the Active. As little can a Middle 
signification be recognized in amexdver@ar Col. ii. 15, aptverOas 
Acts vii. 24 (ef. Dion. H. I. 548), dppogec@at 2 Cor. xi. 2 (Lisner, 
Observ. p. 3820 sq.). Perhaps also wpoéyecOat Rom. iii. 9 is used 
for the Active. Similar instances occur in later writers, Schaef. 
Plutarch. V. 101; Meineke, Index ad Cinnam. 244.1 To this head 
are referred also Eph. v. 13 wav 76 havepotvpevov das éort, and 
1.23 Tod Ta Tavra év Tact TAHpovmévov. But in the first 
passage davepodaGas occurs immediately before as a Passive, and 
the apostle continuing his argument connects davepovpevoy with 
favepodtat ; the former, therefore, must be taken in the same sense 
with the latter, as Harless and Mey. in loc. have explained: all 
things when reproved are made manifest by the light, for everything 
that 1s made manifest is light. Ini. 23 mAnpovp. might also be 
taken in a Passive sense (as has been done by Holzhausen) ; but 
then, as Harless has well shown, Ta Tavta év waot Would create 
difficulty. I take wAmnpodcOa, therefore, as Middle (Xen. Hell. 
5,4,56; 6,2,14; Demosth. Polycl. 707 b.), the fulness of him who 
jilleth all, where the Middle signification is not entirely lost: /rom 
himself, with himself, he filleth all. Likewise in Heb. xi. 40 the 
Middle wpoPrérrec Oar is employed correctly : wpoBdérrew would be 
the bodily act of seeing beforehand ; the Middle expresses the act 
of mental providing. (Similar is the distinction in Greek authors 
between mrpoopacbat and mpoidéc bat. ) 

A distinction between the use of the Act. and Mid. appears in the verb 
évepyetv, the Active of which is used by Paul of personal action (1 Cor. 
xii. 6; Gal. ii. 8; Eph. i. 11, etc.), and the Middle of non-personal (Rom. 
vii. 5; Col. i. 29; 2 Thess. ii. 7, etc.). Hence in 1 Thess. ii. 13 os must 
not be referred to Geds but to Adyos. 


7. From Middle verbs are to be carefully distinguished Deponent. 


hel. These, under a Passive (or Middle) form, have a transitive or a 


neuter signification; and their Active forms either do not occur 
at all (in prose), or have, by usage, exactly the same meaning 
(Rost 267.) ;? as, dvvacOar, Swpeicbar, yiyver Oar, Bidkecbar, évTéd- 


1In the passages selected by Schweighduser, Lexic. Herod. II, 185, the distinctive 
import of the Middle Voice can be for the most part detected. 

2 Only in later authors do we find e.g. the Active of AvuatveoOa, see Passow. On the 
other hand, the Active of dwpetc#at occurs even in Pindar, Olymp.6,131. In the N. T. 
we find even evayyeAl(w, as frequently in the Sept. 


$38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 259 


AecOar, edyecOar, evOvpetoOar, épydfecOm, evraBeicPar, pwaxyerOa, 
péuhecbat, peidecOar, aoraler Oar, epyecOar, ryeicOar, iacbar, Noyi- 
fec0at, mpoartiaoOa, and many others. With regard to Deponents 
it must be remarked that, 

a. Though most of them have in the Aorist the Middle form 
(Middle Deponents, as aitiado at, dorrd fer Par, épyafer bar, peidec Oar), 
yet not a few have in that tense the Passive (Passive Deponents), 
as BovNcoOar, dvvacBat, eTsereiaOat, evraPeicOar, omrayyvicer Oar, 
poopacba, etc. 

b. Others combine both forms, though then (in prose) either the 
one form or the other predominates. Among these is apvetc@az, on 
which (in opposition to Bttm.) see Poppo, Thue. IIT. IV. 209. In 
the N. T. only its Aor. Mid. npynzaynv occurs, which in Greek prose 
authors is precisely the rarer form. On the other hand, dvaréyer@ar 
has always the Passive Aor. in biblical Greek. 

c. Sometimes in Middle Deponents, along with the Aor. (or 
Perf.) Mid. (with an Active signification), the Aor. or the Perf. 
Pass. with a Passive signification is in use; as, €Oea9nv Matt. vi. 1; 
Mark xvi. 11 (Thue. 5, 38) cf. Poppo, Thue. III. I. 594 sq., along 
with €Geacdpnv I saw; td@nv Matt. viii. 13 ; Luke vi. 17 (Isa. liii. 5; 


274 


Plat. legg. 6, T58d.) and tawat Mark v. 29 (on the other hand, 999 
tacapnv Active); éhoyicOnpv often (cf. Xen. C.3,1,33), amredéyOnoar sth ed. 


Acts xv.4 (Aor. Mid. Luke viii. 40; Acts xviii.27) cf. 2 Macc. iii. 9., 
mapntnévos Luke xiv. 19 (Aor. Mid. Heb. xii. 19, 25), &pvcOnv 
2 Tim. iv. 17 (Aor. Mid. Col. i. 13; 2 Pet. ii. 7, etc.), éyapicOnv 
1 Cor. ii. 12; Phil. 1. 29 (Pluperfect, Her. 8,5; Aor. Mid. often 
in N. T., see, in general, Rost, p. 566). 

d. The Fut. Pass. of Aoy/fouae with a Passive meaning occurs 
in Rom. ii. 26, likewise ta@jceras Matt. viii. 8, amapynOnoopat 
Luke xii. 9. Even the Pres. of the first of these is used passively, 
Rom. iv. 5, cf. Ecclus. xl. 19 (not 2 Cor. x. 2); so also of BuatecOar 
Matt. xi. 12, cf. Poppo, Thue. I. 184; IIL. I. 31. 

e. The Perf. Pass. eipyacuas is sometimes used actively 2 Jno. 8 
(Demosth. Conon. 728a. Xen. M. 2, 6,6; Lucian. fugit. 2), and 
sometimes passively Jno. iii. 21 (Xen. M. 3, 10,9; Plat. rep. 8, 
566 a.) Rost, as above. On the other hand, #jpvnua 1 Tim. v. 8, 
évréeradpat Acts xiii. 47 (Herod. 1, 9, 23; Pol. 17, 2,1; 1 Sam. 
xxl. 2; Tob. v. 1, etc.), and dédeyuae Acts viii. 14, have only an 
Active meaning. See, in general, Bttm. I. 51; Bhdy. 541, but 
especially Poppo in the programme mentioned above, and Rost, 
Gramm. 8. 266 ff. 


260 § 39. THE PASSIVE. e 


That among verbs usually called Deponent there are many to be 
944 regarded as Middle, has been noticed by Rost, Gramm. S. 268 f. and 
ith el. Mehlhorn, as above, S. 89. With regard to woArrevecOau this is already 
275 admitted. But xrdoparl acquire for myself, é-ywvilopar (Rost 268), Butler Oar, 
peyadavxetoOar, and perhaps d€xopat, dordCopot (according to Passow ‘a 
Deponent Middle), should be also considered as Middle, as in all of them 
a reflexive meaning is more or less apparent. IJAnpoto@a: Eph. i. 23 is by 
Mey. [in Ist and 2d ed.; not so in 3d] called a Deponent, but improperly. 
‘YorepetoGar occurs only in the N. T. as synonymous with the Active. 
Lastly, patvowor as well as yrra0401 must, as among the Greeks, be taken 
Passively ; Sommer, as above, p. 36. 


§ 89. THE PASSIVE. 


1. When a verb governing the Gen. or Dat. of a person, as 
TuoTevely TIWi, KATNYopety Twos, is construed in the Passive, the 
Greeks generally make the noun denoting the person the Subject 
CRrind37) sas; 

a. Gal. il. 7 werlotevpar TO evayyédvov i.e. TeTLcTEvpévoy Exo 
To evayy. (Actively mictevew Twi 7), Rom. iil. 2 émiatevOnoav (the 
Jews vs. 1) ta Noyia TOD Oeovd, 1 Cor. ix. 1T oixovopiav merictevpat 
ef. Diog. L. 7, 34 wuctevOévtes thy ev Ilepyaum@ Bi8rvoOnxnv, Pol. 
3, 69, 1 memictevpévos THY TOMY Tapa ‘Pwpaiwy, 31, 26,7; Herod. 
7,9, 7; Demosth. Theocr. 507 ¢.; Appian. civ. 2, 186; Strabo 4, 
197 ; 17, 797, and often. Likewise, in the signification to believe 
some one (muortevew tii), the Passive miorevouar signifies J am 
believed! e.g. Xen. A. 7, 6, 88; Isocr. Trapez. p. 874; Demosth. 

233 Callip. 720 a., Bacirevopar Aristot. Nic. 8,11. It is otherwise in 
bhed 1 Tim. iii, 16 émvcredOn (Xpictos) év Kocw@, which cannot be 
referred to mictevew Xpict@, but presupposes the phrase wicrevew 
Xpwrrov, as in 2 Thess. i. 10 erie revOn TO paptupiov nuwv is referable 
to mictevey Tt, 1 Jno. iv. 16. Under this head come also the 
following passages: Acts xxi. 3 avadhavévtes tHv Kurrpov when it 
appeared in sight, i.e. dvahaveicav éxovtes tTHv K., Heb. xi. 2 & 
TavTn e“apTupyOncay ot mpecRuTepor (wapTupeity Tur), Acts xvi. 2 
etc., Heb. xiii. 16 evapeortetras 6 Geos (Bleek in loc.), likewise viii. 5 
Kalas xexpnuatiatat Mavois (Matt. 11.12, 22; Joseph. antt. 3,8, 8) 
and Matt. xi. 5 (Luke vii. 22) wrrwyol evayyedrifovtTar, Heb. iv. 2 — 
the latter passages because the construction evayyerifecbai tit (see 
276 Fr. Mtth. p. 895) and.ypnyariGew tii (Joseph. antt. 10,1, 3; 11, 


1 The reverse amoroduat Wisd. xii. 17, 


§ 39. THE PASSIVE. | 261 


8, 4) is the usual one; probably also Col. ii. 20 ri @s CavTes é&v 
Koop SoypariferOe (Soyparite tui 2 Macc. x. 8) see Mey. In 
3 Jno. 12 the Passive waptupetc Oar is construed also with the Dative 
of a person. 

b. Ofverbs governing the Genitive, only the Passive catnyopodpuae 
occurs, Matt. xxvii. 12 €v 76 xatnyopetaBat avtov UT THY apyLepewr, 
Acts xxii. 80 70 ti Katnyopettrar bo (rapa) tov ‘Iovdaiwy (2 Mace. 
x. 13). On the other hand, I can find no sufficient reason for 
taking Keyapiopar 2 Cor. ii. 10 passively, as Mey. does [yet in the 
4th ed. he has it correctly]. 


In Rom. vi. 17 imnxovcare ... eis dv mapeddOnre tirov diday7s, this con- 
struction is perhaps combined with an attraction (for tank. eis timov 
didax7s, Ov rapeddOnre, i.e. tapadobevra éxere) ; yet see above, § 24, 2, p. 164. 

Heb. vii. 11 6 Aads ex airfs (icowovvys) vevowobérnrar may probably be 
referred to vopoferety tiv: the people have received the law (founded) on 
the priesthood, cf. viii. 6. On the other hand, the passages quoted from 
the Sept. as parallel to vouoberetv twa (rv) do not belong here, as in that 
construction the verb always signifies: guide some one in accordance with 
law, e.g. Ps. exvili. 33 vopobérqoov pe tiv dddv Tv Sikawwpatwv cov, xxiv. 8 
vopoernoe duapravovras ev 60H. But the Byzantine writers use vopoberety 
twa (in reference to a country or people), Malal. p. 72,194. The regular 
construction of the Passive occurs in Deut. xvii. 10 dca av vopobernO} cou 


2. In the N.T. many verbs which in the Middle signification 
have uniformly in classical Greek the 1st Aor. Middle, take instead 
of that the Ist Aor. Passive (cf. § 88,4), as: azexpiOn+ (the 
prevailing form), especially in the Partic. aroxpiels (Aor. Middle 
amexpivato Mark xiv. 61; Luke iii. 16; xxiii. 9; Jno. v. 19; 
xil. 23; Acts iii. 12, and frequently in var. as Jno. i. 263. xii. 34; 
xvili. 34),? cf. Sturz, dial. alex. p. 148sq.; Lob. Phryn. 148 sq.; 
Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 805. In like manner dcexp/On, Matt. xxi. 21; 
Mark xi. 25; Rom. iv. 20 (but éxp/@y in a Passive sense in Acts 
xxvii. 1). In other passages Aorists still regarded as Aor. Pass. for 
Middle, viz. mposexdi@n Acts v. 36, eveduvaywOn Rom. iv. 20, wape- 
doOnre vi. 17, TarrewwOnte 1 Pet. v. 6; Jas. iv. 10, are really ac- 
cording to classic (and even N.'T.) usage Passive Aorists ; just as 
in Latin servari, delectari, are used for (taking German as the 
standard) servare se, delectare se, cf. Rost 568.3 The same remark 


1 Yet we find the form dexpl6n in the MSS. of Xen. A. 2,1,22. On Plato Alc. 2 
p- 149 b. see Phryn. as above. In authors after the age of Alexander it occurs frequently. 

From which we find the Fut. éroxpiOhoouae Matt. xxv. 37, 45 and in the Sept. 

8 The Aor. Mid. of such verbs is usually employed only with the Acc. in the reflexive 
construction mentioned § 38, 2. Thus éoé@nv means me servavi (servatus sum): but 


/ ~ “Te: . 
one says éowoduny 1 Gua corpus meum (mihi) servavi. 


234 


6th ed. 


277 


262 § 39, THE PASSIVE. 


applies to the 2d Aor. catad\Xayntw 1 Cor. vii. 11+; 2 Cor. v. 20 
(cf. Rom. v. 10), and to the Fut. (apos)xorrAnOnceras Matt. xix. 5 
(Eph. v. 31). 


Eph. i. 11 ékAnpwhywev (see Harl. in loc.) and Acts xvii. 4 aposexAy- 
pwlncav are obviously to be taken Passively. 


246 3. That the Perfect (Mtth. 1097) and the Plup. Passive have 
het. o1s6 a Middle signification is admitted on all hands since the old- 
fashioned Perf. and Plup. Middle disappeared from the grammars; 
Bttm. I. 362. In the N.'T. compare Acts xiii. 2 (e’s) 6 apos- 
KéxAnuar avtovs whereunto I have called them for myself, xvi. 10 
TPOSKEKANTAL HAS O KUpLOS EvayryeNiaacOat avTovs the Lord has called 
us for himself etc. (cf. Exod. iii. 18; v. 3), xxv. 12 xaicapa émixéxdy- 
oat thou hast called for thyself upon Caesar (appealed to him), Rom. 
Iv. 21 0 émnyyeATat, duvatos ect Kal Touhoat (6 Geos), Heb. xii. 26; 


Jno. ix. 22 cuveréBewto ot “Iovdaior, 1 Pet. iv. 3 mwemopevpévous év 


agenyelats (1 Sam. xiv. 17; 2 Kings v. 25; Job xxx. 28; Zeph. 
11.15; Demosth. Nicostr. 723 c. etc.). (On the Perf. Passive of 
Deponents, see § 38, 7, p. 259.) 


On the other hand, in 1 Pet. iv. 1 réravrat dpaptias (which is usually 
rendered peccare desiit, cf. Xen. C. 8,1, 18) may be also taken as Passive : 
he has rest from sin, is preserved from it, see Kypke in loc. Phil. iii. 12, 
however, in no event comes under this head. odArrevouar (Acts xxiii. 1) 
may according to Poppo’s theory be considered as a Deponent (since the 
Active in an intransitive sense is to be found) ; yet see above, p. 260. In 
Rom. xiv. 23 xarakékptrae was undoubtedly employed by the apostle in a 
Passive sense. 
The Perf. Passive is said to be used for the Perf. Active in Acts xx. 13 
ovr yop hv (6 Iatdos) Suateraypévos, and 2 Pet. i. 3 tis Oetas duvdpews 
... TA pos Conv Sedwpynpevyns (cf. Jensii lectt. Lucian. p. 247). But in 
the first passage, dvar. is Middle (as in Polyaen. 6, 1, 5; Joseph. antt. 4, 2, 
3 and elsewhere) : so had he appointed ; and in 2 Pet. i. 3 the Perf. comes 
from the Deponent?! dwpéoua. Further, cf. Poppo, Thue. I. 1. 179 sqq. 
235 Note 1. The Fut. Pass. is used in a very singular manner in Acts xxvi. 16 
Whel. cis rodro SdhOnv cor, zpoyepicacbal oe Sxypéryy Kal paprupa, dv te €ldes, Sv 
278 re 6dOnoopat co. Agreeably to the parallelism the passage might be trans- 


1 Markland (explicatt. vett. aliquot locor. in the Leipsic reprint of his edition of 
Eurip. supplic. p. 324 sq.) refers to this head also the passage, famous in the Predesti- 
nation controversy, Acts xiii. 48, which he punctuates kt. émlorevoar, boo: Hoay TeTaymEvot, 
eis (why aidy. and translates: et fidem professi sunt, quotquot (tempus, diem) constitu- 
erant, in vitam aeternam. ‘This interpretation, however, should find with unprejudiced 
expositors as little approval as most of those which come from English philologists, 
(who at any rate give more attention to the N. T’. than the German). 


a 


§ 89. THE PASSIVE. 263 


lated: what thou hast seen, and what I will cause thee to see, ddbyoopar 
being taken in a causative sense (see Doederl. Soph. Oedip. C. p. 492; 
Bornem. in Rosenm. Rep. II. 289). The other interpretation, followed in 
general by Schott, Kiihnél, Heinrichs, Mey.,de Wette: de quibus (in refer- 
ence to which) or guorwm caussa tibi porro apparebo, would on the whole 
be more suited to the context, and is certainly simpler than the former. 
As to oy for a by attraction, see § 24, 2, p. 165 sq. 

Note 2. Asin the Hellenistic language many verbs which in classic Greek 
are neuter are used transitively (see above, p. 251), expositors affirm that 
the Passive also, conformably to this causal signification, is occasionally to 
be taken just like the Hebrew Hophal. But of this there is no certain or 
even probable instance. In Gal. iv. 9 yrovres Oedv, padAov dé yrwobevres br 
avrov even the antithesis requires the passage to be rendered: knowing God, 
or rather known (recognized) by God, see my Comment. in loc. 1 Cor. viii. 3 
el Tis dyara Tov Hedy, odTos eyvwora tr airod should not be translated, as 
by Erasm., Beza, Nésselt, Pott, Heydenreich, et al.: 2s veram ‘intelligen- 
tiam consecutus est ; but the meaning is: whoever imagines he knows any- 
thing (that is where a yv@o.s dvowtca exists) has not yet known as one 
ought to know, but if any one loves God (cf. the preceding words 7 dyad 7 
oikodopei), he (has not only known as he ought to know, but) 7s known by 


_ fim (God), (is himself an object of the highest and truest, that is of 


divine, knowledge). In 1 Cor. xiii. 12 dptue ywookw ék pépovs, tore Oe 
eriyvooopat Kaas Kal €reyveaGny, the latter undoubtedly refers to the 
knowledge of God, and Nosselt has correctly rendered the passage: there 
we shall know all perfectly (not é« jépous, not as if év aivéypare), even 
as perfectly as God knows us.’ It has not yet been shown from Biblical 
Greek that ywwoxew denotes cognoscere facere, edocere ; and probably Pott 
was not satisfied himself when he quoted Jno. v.42; Rom. ii. 18. This 
meaning, however, meets: us in a passage adduced by Stephanus in his 
Thesaurus from Demosth. cor. (p. 345 ¢.): dpoddynke viv y tyuas trdpyew 
eyvwopeéevovs eue pe A€yew trép ths tarpidos, airov 0 irép Pirirrov; 
but it disappears if we read yas, as Dissen does, on the authority of a Cod., 
nos esse cognitos (i.e. de nobis constare), me quidem verba facere pro 
patria, etc. 

Note 3. Frequently it has seemed doubtful whether a particular verbal 
form is Middle or Passive. ‘The decision is grammatical only in so far as it 
can be shown that the verb in question was never used either in the Pas- 
sive or in the Middle, or that in the Middle it had an Active signification. 
Hence in Rom. i. 24 driuaecOa is properly regarded as Passive; so too 
oixodopetoGat 1 Cor. viii. 10, ravecOar 1 Pet. iv. 1, dvaveodoba. Eph. iv. 23. 
On the other hand, 1 Cor. 1. 2 of éxuxadovpevot 76 dvopa. Tod Kvpiov can only 
be Middle. In other passages either the context must decide,—as in 


1 A similar antithesis of the Active and Passive occurs in Phil. iii. 12f. Cf. Arrian. 
Epict. 3, 23, 8 dbvaral tis OPeAToat Kad UAAous wh adtds APeAnuevos; Liban. ep. 2. 


247 


dit ede 


236 
hth ed. 


279 


264 § 40, THE TENSES. 


2 Cor. ii. 10 where xeydpiopar (Mey. to the contrary [in his earlier edd.]) 
is to be regarded as Middle, and Rom. iii. 9 where zpo€xeo@ar clearly 
cannot be Passive; or the known usage of the writer elsewhere, as in 
Eph. vi. 10 in respect to évdvvapotade. 


9A8 § 40. THE TENSES. 


Tih ed. 
1. With regard to the Tenses of the verb, N.T. grammarians and 


expositors t have been guilty of the greatest mistakes.2 In general, 
the tenses ® are employed in the N. 'T. exactly in the same manner 
as in Greek authors, * viz. the Aorist marks simply the past (merely 
occurrence at some former time—viewed too as momentary), and is 
the tense usually employed in narration ; the Imperfect and Pluper- 
fect always have reference to secondary events connected in respect 
to time with the principal event (as relative tenses) ; the Perfect 
brings the past into connection with the present, representing an 
action in reference to the present as concluded. No one of these 
tenses strictly and properly taken can stand for another, as com- 
937 mentators often would have us believe.® But where such an inter- 
bth el. change appears to take place (cf. Georgi, Vind. p. 252 sqq. Hiero- 
280 crit. I.58 sq.) either it is merely apparent, and a sufficient reason 
(especially a rhetorical one) can be discovered why this and no other 
tense has been used, or it is to be set down to the account of 
a certain inaccuracy peculiar to the language of the people, which 
did not conceive and express relations of time with entire precision 


1 Cf. Bertholdt, Einleit. VI. 3151: “In the use of the tenses, it is well known that. 
the N. T. writers pay very little regard to the rules of grammar.” 

2 Occasioned in part by parallel passages which it was thought must be considered 
as exactly alike grammatically. The abuse of parallelism in exposition ought some- 
time to be exhibited separately. 

’ The three principal tenses with the Greeks were the Present, the Perfect, and the 
Future: Plut. Isid. c. 9 éyé eiue rd yeyovds rad dy Kad eoduevov, cf. Odyss. 16, 437. 

4 Cf., besides the well known grammatical works (especially Hm. emend. rat. p. 180sqq. ; 
Schneider, Vorles. iiber griech. Gramm. I. 239 ff.; Krii. 147 ff.), ZL. G. Dissen, de tempo- 
ribus et modis verbi graeci. Gott. 1808. 4to.; H. Schmidt, doctrinae tempor. verbi 
gr. et lat. expositio histor. Hal. 1836-1842. 4 Abthl. 4to. An earlier dissertation by 
G. W. Oeder, Chronol. grammat. Gott. 1743 (in Pott, Sylloge VII. 133 sqq.) is of little 
use. On the other hand, the enall. temp. was combated in A. zwm Felde, de enall. praes. 
temp. in S. S. usu. Kil. 1711. 4to., and in Woken’s work, mentioned above (p. 8, Note 1) ; 
cf. also the views of Aristides in Georg:, Vind. 252. 

5 The arbitrary interchange of tenses (enallage temporum) is accounted a Hebraism, 
as it is imagined that in Hebrew the Preterite is indiscriminately used for the Future, 
and vice versa. But the incorrectness of this opinion has been already shown by Gesenius 
(Lehrgeb. S. 760 sqq.), and still more thoroughly by Lwald (Krit. Gr. 528 ff.). 


§ 40. THE TENSES. 260 


(Krii. 158 f.). The latter occurs chiefly in the interchange (or 
combination) of those tenses which, like the Preterites, denote one 
and the same principal relation of time. 

2. Accordingly the Present tense, which expresses present time 249 
in all its relations (particularly in rules, maxims, and principles of Ietan 
permanent validity, cf. Jno. vii. 52), is used 

a. Only in appearance for the Future (exactly asin Latin, German, 
etc.) when an action still future is to be designated as as good as 
already present, either because it is already firmly resolved upon or 
because it follows according to some unalterable law ; as, Matt. xxvi. 

2 oldate, OTe peta SVo Hucpas TO Tacya yiverar (is the Passover) 
Kat 0 vios TOU avOpwTrov TrapadidoTat eis TO TTaVpwOFvas (rs delivered, 

an event which as a divine decree is fixed), Jno. xiv. 3 éav mopev0a 
»..7dAwW epyomat Kal Tapadrrouat (xxi. 23), Matt. xvii. 11 “Hdias 

pev Epyerar (a point of Jewish Christology) kat amoxatacryjces 
_wavta cf. Jno. vii. 42, Luke xii. 54 érav idnte thy veperAnv avatédXov- 

cav aro Svopav, evOéws EeyeTE* OuPpos EpyeTat (in reference to a 
meteorological principle founded on experience), Col. iii. 6 8° @ 
Epyetat 7 opyn Tov Geod eri Tovs viods THs atrevHelas (according to a 
law of God’s moral government), Heb. iv. 3; 1 Cor. iii. 13; xv. 2; 
Eph. v. 5. Hence the expression épyeras dpa dre, used by Jesus 
Jno. iv. 21; xvi. 2, and the Jewish designation 6 €pyopevos (x37) 

for the Messiah. The phrase in John 6zrovu etui éyw followed by the 
Fut., Jno. xii. 26; xiv. 33; xvii. 24, may be also brought under this 
head, if we do not prefer the interpretation where J am, where I 
have myhome. It would be a mistake in translating these passages 

to substitute the Future for the Present preferred by the writer. 

Cf. Poppo, Thue. I I. 153; Krii. 149, and as to Latin, Ramshorn 

p- 401. In other passages the Present is employed to denote what 

is just about to take place, what one is on the point of doing, that for 
which he is already making preparation (Hm. Vig. 746 and Soph. 281 
Oed. C. 91; Bekker, specim. Philostr. p. 73 sq.; Schoem. ad Isaeum 

p. 202); as, Jno. x. 52 dia roiov avtav Epyov ALWOakeTE pe (they 
had already taken up stones), Jno. xili. 6 KUpte, av pou vires TOUS 
mooas ; (he had already prepared to wash them), xiii. 27; 1 xvi. 17 238 
Cimdyo), xvii. 11; xxi. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 31; 2 Cor. xiii, 1; Rom. 
xv. 25. See, in general, Held, Plutarch. Tim. p. 335 sq. 


1°O motets, molnoov tdxLov quod (jam) facis, quo jam occupatus es, id (fac) perfice 
ocius ; ef. Arrian. Epict. 4,9, 18 molec & motezs, 3, 23, 1, and Senec. benef. 2, 5 fac, si 
quid facis ; see Wetsten. I. 931. The command or recommendation here is not conveyed 
in the verb, but in the adverb annexed. 
34 


250 
ith ed. 


282 


266 § 40. THE TENSES. 


Many other passages have been referred to this head with still less 
plausibility. In Jno. iii. 86 the thought is weakened, if yet be taken for 
eget. The notion which John attached to gw not only admits, but almost 
requires, the Present. And apart from this, the expression éxew Coy 
aiwviov might very well be used of one who indeed is not yet in the enjoy- 
ment of eternal life, but who in the certainty of his hope already as it 
were possesses it. So also Jno. v. 26; Matt. v. 46 have been correctly 
explained by Fr. On the other hand, we must not with him regard Matt. 
iil. 10 as a general maxim: every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit, 
ts hewn down (is wont to be hewn down). These words are connected by 
obv with 9 agivy mpos rHv pilav rdv dévdpwv Ketrat, and require to be rendered 
with a special reference to the preceding dévépa: the axe is already lying 
at the root of the trees ; accordingly every tree etc. 7s, (will be) to a cer- 
tainty, hewn down ; i.e. from the fact of the axe’s being already applied, 
it may be inferred what fate awaits the bad trees. 1 Cor. xv. 35 zs 
é€yeipovrat ot vexpoi treats of the resurrection of the dead, not as a fact 
(of the future), but as a doctrine: 7m what manner does the resurrection . 
of the dead (according to thy teaching) take place? cf. vs. 42. In the 
same way we can say: Christ 7s the Judge; the punishments of the damned — 
are eternal etc. In like manner Matt. ii. 4 rod 6 Xpuoros yevvarar (i.e. 
where is the birthplace of the Messiah ?) and Jno. vii. 52.. In 2 Cor. v. 1 
oldapev, OTL, Cav 7) exiyetos Hudv oikia TOU oKHVOUS KaTaAVOH, oikodopyy ex Oeod 
é€xopev, the Future efouev would have been inexact; the instantaneous 
entrance into a new habitation, the moment the xataAverOar takes place, is 
intended to be expressed. In Matt. vii. 8 the Present (of what usually 
occurs, Krii. 148) is connected, in a statement of universal application, with 
the Future, cf. Rom. vi. 16; Gal. ii.16. On the other hand, in Matt. iii. 11 
the Present and the Future (of one about to come) are intentionally dis- 
tinguished: the Present refers to the predicted, permanent (and already 
present) personality; the Future, Barrice, to a particular function which 
he is to execute. Lastly, in the parallel passages Matt. xxiv. 40 and Luke 
xvii. 34 we find in the former the Present, 6 eis rapaAapPaverat, but 
in the latter the Future, «is traparynPOyocerac; in the one passage the 
fact introduced by the Fut. (écovrat) is by a vivid conception regarded as 
present (see what follows) ; in the other, it is depicted in all its parts as 
future. Cf. besides, Jno. xvi. 14,15; Heb. i. 11. 


b. For the Aorist as a historical tense, only when the narrator 
wishes to represent the past vividly, as though it were just taking 
place (Longin. c. 25; Mith.1135f.; cf. Zumpt, lat.Gramm.§, 481.) ; 

Jno. i. 29 7H éravpiov Breve ... Kai Neyer (vs. 82 Kal eéwaptv- 
pynoev), i. 44 ebpicxes Pidurmov Kai réyer (7OéAncev just before) 


1Jn what immediately follows, ob dPerar Cwhv, the Apostle very accurately dis- 
tinguishes the Future from the Present. 


§40. THE TENSES. 267 


ef. 46, xiii. 4 f.; Matt. xxvi. 40 doyeras mpos Tovs pabnras Kai evpicKer 239 
abrods kabevdovras. Such a Present is often introduced abruptly “4 
between Aorists, Jno. ix. 13; xviii. 28; xix. 9; Acts x. 11; Mark 

vy. 15; or Present and Aorist are combined in the same verse, as 
Mark vi. 1; ix. 2; xi.15; Jno. xx.6,19. In the first three Gospels 

one Evangelist uses the Present, while in the corresponding nar- 
rative another employs the Aorist; with Matt. xxi. 13 cf. Mark 

xi. 17 f., and with Matt. xxii. 23 cf. Mark xii. 18. This Present 
occurs also in the Apocalyptic visions; as, Rev. xi. 9; xii. 2. As 251 
to the Sept., in which this usage is extremely rare, see Thiersch jaa 
_p. 187. Suddenness in a series of past events is indicated with 
striking effect by the Present in Matt. ii. 13 dvaywpnoavtwv adtav 
idov ayyeXos Kupliov haiverar Kat dvap, etc. 


Similar instances occur in Xen. Hell. 2,1, 15; Cyr. 4,6,4; 10; 5,4, 3; 
Ages. 2, 19-20; Thuc. 1, 48; 2, 68; Paus.1,17, 4; 9,6,1; Arrian. Al. 
7,17,5; Dion. H.1V. 2113; Achill. Tat. 4, 4, p.85; Jacobs, Xen. Ephes. 
d, 12, p. 113; cf. Abresch, Aristaen. p. 11 sq.; Ast, Plat. Phaedr. p. 335; 
Ellendt, Arrian. Al, II. 68. 


c. Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), 
viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier 
period but still continues, — a state in its duration; as, Jno. xv. 27 
aT apxis wer’ €wovd eae, Vill. 58 mpiv “ABpaap yevécOar éy@ elu (cf. 
Jer. i. 5 1po Tod we TAACAL GE EV KONI, ETigTapai ce, Ps. 1xxxix. 2), 
2 Pet. ili. 4; 1 Jno. iii. 8. To this head may be referred likewise 
Acts xxv. 11 ef pév adix Kat aEvov Cavatou mérpaya Te (cf. Xen. C. 
5, 2,24); aduxco, however, denotes a quality existing in reference to 283 
the judge, ddixos ejus, see Bhdy. 370; Mtth. 1137. In Jno. viii. 14 
there is first an Aorist and then a Present: ofda 7ofev ANGov... 
bueis 5é ovK oldaTe, TOVEV EpKomat. 

In 1 Jno. iii. 5 the sinlessness of Jesus is considered as still present to 
faith (see Liicke) ; but in Acts xxvi. 31 otdev Gavdrov aéwov 7) Secpav rpacce 
does not refer to Paul’s past life, but to his conduct in general: this man 
(so simple an enthusiast) does nothing bad; see Bengel in loc. (Kiihnil is 
wrong); cf. Jno. vil. ol. Recent expositors have admitted that in Heb. 
li. 16 ériAapf. is not to be taken as a past tense (Georgi, Vind. 25; 
Palair."479) ; likewise eisfacw in ix. 6 is a pure Pres. In 1 Cor. xi. 30 
Koyz@vrat is properly translated by Bengel obdormiunt (later critics have 
all either rendered it as a past tense, or taken no notice of it; yet even 
in Byzantine writers xowacOa signifies only to fall asleep, expire, and not 
to be dead). On rapdyerou in 1 Jno. ii. 8 see Liicke. In Jno. v. 2 no 
expositor of any judgment will admit the possibility even that éoré stands 
for nv. On the other hand, the use of the Present does not necessarily 


268 § 40, THE TENSES. 


he 


prove that the locality was still in the same condition when the author 
wrote ; cf. Schoem. Plutarch. Agid. p. 1385 sqq. 
The Present in dependent clauses may appear to stand for the Imperfect ; 
as, Jno. ii. 9 otk noe, 7OHev eoriv, iv. 1 nKoveay ot Papiator, ott ‘Inoods ... 
QA0 wovet kat Barriler, Mark v.14 e&pAGov idetv, ri €ote Td yeyovds, xii. 41; xv. 47; 
6th ed. Jno. 1. 40;. v. 18, 15;. vi. 5, 24, 64; Luke vii. 387; xix. 3; Actaiyeiee 
ix. 26; x. 18; xii. 3; Heb. xi. 8, 183— (the Preterite, found in most of 
these passages according to a greater or smaller number of Codd., is a 
manifest correction.) But the use of the Present in such cases is a pure 
Greek construction (see Vig. p. 214sq.; cf. below § 41 b. 5), founded 
959 properly in a mingling of the oratio recta and oratio obliqua (Porson, 
ith ed, Surip. Orest. p. 36 Lips.),! cf. Pol. 5, 26,6; 8, 22,2and4; Ael. 2,13 ext.; 
Long. past. 1,10 and 13. In these passages the Imperf. or the Aor. might 
have intimated that what was inquired about or heard was already past 
at the time when the inquiry or the hearing took place; cf. Jno. ix. 8 ot 
Oewpodvtes aitov TO mpdtepov, Ste TuPAds HV, Luke viii. 53; Matt. xxvii. 18; 
Acts iv. 13. 
3. The Imprrrect, asin Greek prose authors (Bhdy. 872 f. ; Krii. 
149 ff.), is used 
a. When a past action is to be designated in relation to another 
simultaneous action as then going on (Bremi, Demosth. p. 19) ; 
as, Juno. iv. 31 év 76 peta€d jpwrtov adrov (viii. 6, 8), vi. 21; Luke 
284 xiv: T édeye ... €éywv, TOS Tas TpwWTOKMIGlas EEENEYOVTO how 
they (then) were choosing out, xxiv. 32 9 kapdia iuav Katopévn jv 
év ily, @S EXaAEL Huly €v TH 06M, Acts Vill. 36 ws ErropevovTO KaTa 
Thy ooov, HAOov eri Te Vdwp, X. 17; xvi. 4; xxii. 11; Luke vi. 19; 
INO, LOR Gs 
b. To denote a continuous or statedly repeated past action (Mtth. 
1117, 1183 ; Schoem. ad Plut. Agid. p. 187; Held, Plutarch. Aem. 
P. p. 267); as, Jno. ill. 22 éxet dvétpyBe per advtav Kai éPamrrilev, 
Rom. xv. 22 évexortounv ta moda Tov édGetv, 1 Cor. x. 4 émuvov 
yap €k mvevpat. axodouvlovans métpas (where ézvov denotes simply 
the past and completed action; but éevov the continuation of it 
during the journey through the wilderness), xill. 11 67€ sunv vires, 
@s vyTLos éXddovv, Acts xiii. 11 trepraywr eGnTer Yetpaywyous, Matt. 
xiii. 34 ywpis TrapaBonhs ov« éddrev (during his ministry), cf. Luke 
v.15 ‘vi. 23 3 viii. 41,52; xvii, 28; xxiv.14, 27 ;) Matt. ii. 5 fae 
89> Marki. 7,31; Jno. v. 183 vil. 1; xi..55 xiii..22 f.; xii. 2g 
18; Acts vi: 1, 7 (Thue. 1, 29); ix. 20; xi. 20; xviii. 255 xkwiaig 
11: xxvii. 6; Rev. 1.9; 1 Pet. iii.5; 2 Pet. ii. 8; Hebo xine 


1 On the still more extended use of the Present in parenthetical clauses for a Pret- 
erite, see Bttm. Gr. § 124, Note 6, and ad Philoct. p. 129. 


§40. THE TENSES. 269 


Col. iii. 7, etc. So Xen. A. 1, 2,18; 4,5,18; 5, 4,245 6,3, 38; 
Mem. 1, 1,5; Apol. Socr. 14. Accordingly the Imperfect denotes 
a custom or habit; as, Mark xv. 6 cata éoptyv arrédvev avtots éva 
décpuov, xiv. 12 (Demosth. Phil. 2. 27 b.); cf. Hm. Vig. 746. 

ce. To express an action commenced in time past but not com- 
pleted ! (Schaef. Demosth. I. 8337 and Plutarch. IV. 898; Poppo, 
Thue. IIL. 1.646 ; Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 282; Maetzner, Antiph. 
p- 220; Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 178) ; as, Luke i. 59 éxadovv avto 
... Zayapiay (the mother objects, and he is called John), Matt. 241 
iii. 14 6 88 “Iwavyns dvexorvev adrov cf. vs. 15, Acts vii. 26 cuvnrA- 6th ed, 
Naccev avtovs els eipjnvnv (Moses) cf. vs. 27 (according to good 253 
Codd. [Sin. too], see Fritzsche de crit. conformat. p. 31). Similar “et 
instances occur in Hurip. Iph. T. 360; Herc. f. 487; Her. 1, 68 ; 
Thue. 2,5; Demosth. Mid. 396 b.; Xenoph. A. 4, 5,19; Mem. 1, 
2,29; Paus. 4,9, 4; cf. Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 837, note. On 
the other hand, Heb. xi. 17. (aposépepev) does not come under this 
head ; but Gal. i. 13 probably would, if zop@ety be rendered destroy ; 
yet see my Com. in loc. 

d. Sometimes also in narration apparently for the Aorist, when 
events are described at which the narrator was present; as, Luke 
x. 18 eGewpovy Tov catavayv ws; actpaTiy éK Tov ovpavod TeEcoVTA. 
The narrative thus becomes more graphic and animated than it 285 
would be with the Aorist, which simply reports and confines within 
a single point of time; cf. also Acts xvi. 22 éxéXevav paBdiGew (cf. 
Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 620) they gave orders (while I was present) 
etc. (Mtth. 1117). Accordingly this may be referred to No. 1. 
Cf. Hm. Soph. Oed. C. p. 76; Soph. Aj. p. 159; Poppo, Thue. I. 1.155; 
Ellendt, Arrian. Al. 1. 225 ; Schoem. Plut. Agid. p. 84,142; Mtth. 
1138; Bhdy. 373. In no case is it necessary to take this tense for 
the Pluperfect; (yet see Poppo, as above; Bornem. Xen. Anab. p. 53 
Kriiger, Dion. H. p. 304). In Acts iv. 13 e@atpafov éreyivwoxov 
Te avTovs, 6TL UY TO Incod 7cav must be closely taken together : 
they marvelled and recognized (roused by their very wonder to more 
attentive observation) that, etc. Kiihnol is wrong, following Raphel, 
annot. I. 37. 


In many passages Codd. vary between the Imperfect and the Aorist, e.g. 
Mark vi. 12; xiv. 70 (see Fr. in loc.), Acts vii. 31; viii. 17, as in Greek 
authors also the forms of these two tenses are often interchanged (cf. 


1 Hm. Soph. Aj. 1106: in e0, quod quis voluit facere, nee tamen perfecit, quod aptius 
adhiberi tempus potest, quam quod ab ea ipsa ratione nomen habet, imperfectum ? 
Cf. Mdv. 112. 


270 § 40. THE TENSES. 


Boisson. Eunap. p. 431 and Philostr. her. p. 530), and sometimes differ 
very little in meaning (Schaef. Plutarch. IV. 346; Siebelis, Pausan. IV, 
290). It often depends on the writer whether he will regard the action 
as momentary or as continued, —as a point or a period in time, Kiihner 
II. 74 (Matt. xxvi. 59 e€yjrovv Wevdopaprupiay ... kal ody et pov, but Mark 
Xiv. 00 kal ovx evptoxov, cf. Matt. xix. 13 with Mark x. 13); and thus, 
particularly in (later) Greek writers, the Imperfect of verbs of saying, 
going, sending is not unfrequently used where the Aorist appeared to be 
requisite, Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 570 sq.; Held, Plutarch. Tim. p. 484 sq. ; 
cf. ‘Mark 11. 27; iv. 103; v.18; yu. 17; x.°17;' Duke i 7 vir. 30 pee 
9, aL ix. 2 Acts i. Sie? a 
The Imperfect and the Aorist are connected with appropriate distinction 
' in Luke viii. 23 caréByn Aathay ... Kal cvverAnpodvto Kal éxwdvvevor, xv. 28 ; 
Mark vii. 85 ; xi. 18; Jas. ii. 22; Matt. xxi. 8f.; Jno. vii. 14; xii, 18,17; 
xx.3; Acts xi. 6f.; xxi.3 (Jno. i. 5); Philem. 13,14; 1 Cor. xi. 23 (in 
the same way the Imperfect and Perfect in 1 Cor. xiii. 11) cf. Thue. 7, 20, 
954 44; Xen. A. 3, 4,31; 5, 4,24; Plutarch. Agis 19; Arrian. Al. 2, 20, 35? 
ith ed. Reisig, Soph. Oed. C. p. 254sq.; Stallb. Plat. Phaed. p.29; Ellendt, Arrian. 
242 Al. II. 67 sq. 
Oa ein" The Imperfect might appear to be put for the Present (yet see Mehl- 
286 horn, Anacr. p. 235 sq.; cf. Fuhr, Dicaearch. p. 156 sq.) in Col. iii. 18 
izoraccerbe Tots avopdow, ws avnKeEV, év Kupiw, ut par est, and in Eph. 
v. 4 (uy dvopalécOw ev tptv) aicypdrys 7) pwpodoyia 7) edrpamedia, & ovK 
avnKev (immediately before, ka6as zpérer) var. But it must be rendered: 
ut oportebat, ut par erat, as it should have been (already hitherto), see ~ 
Mtth. 1188; Bornem. Schol. p. 181; for every such exhortation, strictly 
speaking, involves the assumption that what is enjoined has not hitherto 
been observed? (Krii. 150). Cf. § 41 @. 2. On Eph. as above, see ibid. 
In Matt. xxvii. 54 jv refers to one now dead: he was God’s Son. 


4. The Perrect is employed in strict accordance with its proper 
import, whenever the past is to be put into relation with the 
present; that is, when something past is intended to be represented 
as something just now (in the present) completed: (J have com- 


1 The following passage is particularly instructive: Diod. S. Exc. Vat. p. 25, 9 sqq. 
6 Kpotoos peteweumeto ek Tis ‘EAAdSos Tous éml copia mpwrevovtas ... weTewEeupato dé 
Kal SdAwva, etc. Cf. also Plat. Parmen. 126¢. radra eimdytes €BadiCouey Kal raTeAdBowev 
tov Avtidorra etc., and from the LXX. Num. xxxiii. 38 f. avé8n ‘Aapov rad adwmébavey ... 
’Aapay iv Tpiav Kal elkoot kal ExaTdy éTaY, OTE amebvnoKeD. 

2 To take avjKev, as Luther does, for a Perfect with the meaning of the Present, is as 
unnecessary as it is grammatically inadmissible. Should xadjxev, mposjxev also be 
regarded as Perfects? Must then the Perfect xa, elsewhere rare, have established itself 
just in these forms even in Attic? Besides, no passagé can be adduced in which these 
words necessarily have the meaning of a Present, — provided only a reader acquires the 
power of keeping the German mode of thought subordinate to the Greek. 


§40, THE TENSES. O71 


manded, my command is at present one previously given).! Here 

the result of the action is usually, but not necessarily (Krii. 151), 
conceived of as permanent. The following instances are especially 
instructive: Luke xiii. 2 doxetre, 67¢ of TartXaioe obtot duaptwrol 
Tapa TavTas ... éyévovTo, OTe Towa’Ta TeTmovOacwy that these 
Galileans were sinners because they have suffered, i.e. suffered not 
merely once or in time past (that would be the Aor.), but that they 
stand recorded among the historical examples of those who have 
been cut off by (a violent) death; iv. 6 67 éuot wapadédorat 

(7 é€ovcia) i.e. 1am in possession of it, after having received it, 
commissam habeo potestatem (the Aorist would denote 7 was 
delivered to me, which would leave it uncertain whether the pos- 
session of it still continued) ; v. 32 ov« €ANnAVEa KarécaL SiKalous 955 
Lam not here (on earth) in order to, etc. (in Matt. ix. 15 in nav- Th ed. 
rative style: ov« 7#AGov I came not, was not sent), ef. vil. 20, 50; ‘oa 
Rom. vii. 2 9) travdpos yuvn TO COvte avdpl dédeTat vouw is bound es 
(accordingly belongs to), Gal. ii. 7 wemriotevpas TO evaryyéXov COn- 
ereditum mihi habeo, etc. (his apostolic functions continue, he is 
still in the exercise of them), likewise 1 Thess. ii. 4 caOws Sedoxi- 287 
pedopela 70 Tod Oeod TictevOHvat TO evayyédov, 1 Cor. xi. 15 % 
Kop avti wepiBoraiov dédotas (yvvatki) she has (by a fixed arrange- 
ment of nature) havr for, etc., Heb. x. 14 pd mposhopa tererelwxev 

eis TO Oimvexes Tovs ayvafouévous (where the contrast pwd ... TeTE- 
Aetwxev must not be overlooked), Jno. xix. 22 d yéypada, yéypada, 
Mark x. 40; xi. 21; xvi.4; Luke xiii. 12; Jno. vii. 19, 22; viii. 
O08 ; Xili. 1257 xv. 24; xix.380; xx. 21; Acts viii. 14; Rom. iii. 21; 
meee xsi: 7 Ooreil. Lissdy. 45 vil 14f5)2 Cor. iii, 10 ;-viv1l; 
Col. 11.14; ii. 3; Heb. i. 4; ili. 3; vii. 6,14; viii. 6,13; ix. 18, 
eeeexu. 25 1. Jno. x. 9f.; 3:Jno. 12; 1 Pet. iv. 1; Rev. iii. 17. 
Hence in quotations from the O.T. prophecies the very frequent 
use of yéypartau, or Keypnuatiotae Heb. viii. 5, or eipnxe Heb. i. 18; 

ly. 4, etc.3 


1 Hm. emend. rat. p. 186: yéypapa tempus significat praeteritum terminatum prae- 
senti tempore ita, ut res, quae perfecto exprimitur, nunc peracta dicatur, illudque jam, 
peractam rem esse, praesens sit. Poppo in his Progr. Emendanda et supplenda ad 
Matthiaei gram. gr. (Frkf. on the Oder, 1832) p. 6, thus defines the nature of the Perfect : 
actionem plane praeteritam, quae aut nunc ipsum seu modo finita est aut per effectus 
suos durat, notat. 

2Twoonere, rl memolnra iuty ; where the finished action (&aba) is represented, 
according to its symbolical a ae as continuing its influence down to the present. 
Cf. xv. 18. 

8 Likewise in 2 Cor. xii. 9 elpnxé pore apet oor H xdpis pov the Perfect refers toa 
statement (of the Lord’s) which was to be expressed as not merely having been made, 


272 § 40, THE TENSES. 


We find the Perfect and Aorist joined together (ef. Weber, 
Demosth. 480) in Luke iv. 18 éypicé pe evayyenicacbat, arréotanké 
pe knpvEat he anointed me... and hath sent me (the former viewed 
as what took place once; the latter, as still present in its effects), 
Mark xv. 44 [Ti\Gtos eOavpacev ei H5n TéEOvnKeE* Kal... enpoTnoer 
avuTov, eb Tada at éOave (the latter referring to the event, the act 
of dying; the former, to the effect, the being dead), Heb. ii. 14 
eTel TA TALIA KEKOLVOVNKE CapKds Kal aipatos, Kal avTos 
petéoxe (at his incarnation) tav aditav, 1 Cor. xv. 4 67s érady 
(an event that once took place, long past) cai éts éynyeptau TH 
tplt™ nuépa (continues in its effects in the new life of Jesus), 
2-Cor.i. 19; ix. 2; Acts xxi. 28; Jno. viii. 403 ivi 38 sexo 
1 Jno. i. 1.1. Characteristic are the following passages also: Col. 
i. 16 Ott €v ait@ éxticOn Ta Tavta (the act of creation)... Ta 
mavra Ov avtTov Kal eis av’tov éExtrotac (doctrinal view of the 
completed and now existing creation), Jno. xvii. 14; xx. 23 (Mey); 
1 Cor. xv. 27; Col. iii. 3. 

The Perfect simply for the Aorist in narration occurs in Rev. 
v. 7 AGE Kat eiAnde (TO BLEriov) without var., viii. 5. The 
Perfect is thus used purely with the signification of an Aorist 
particularly in later writers (especially the Scholiasts, Poppo, Thue. 


256 II. I. 763), Schaef. Demosth. I. 468; Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. I. 
ith el. 391 sq. (Lips.) ; Lehrs, quaestion. epic. p. 274; Index to Petr. 
244 Patric. in the Bonn edition, p. 647; Bhdy. 379. Less remarkable 
bth el. js 2 Cor. xi. 25... EaBov, eppaBdicOnv ... eniOdcOnv ... evavaynoa, 
288 vuxOnpepov ev TH BvOG Twe7otnKa, Heb. xi. 28 rictes TeToinke 


TO Tacya Kal THY Tposyvow Tod aiwatos (nothing but Aorists 
precede and follow) cf. also verse 17. In such enumerations of 
detached facts, it was a matter of indifference whether the Aorist 
or the Perfect should be employed, they are both alike suitable 
(I was stoned, I suffered shipwreck, I have spent a day, ete.). In 
Mark iii. 26 nobody will take peyépiotae after avéSn for an Aorist 
because in vs. 25 the Aor. epic occurs. 

The Perfect is used for the Present, P 

a. Only in so far as the Perfect denotes an action or state whose 
commencement and occasion were completed in time past (Hm. 
Vig. 748); as, Jno. xx. 29 671 Ewpaxds pe, TeTLoTEvKas, where the 
origin of his (still existing faith) is intended to be indicated, iii. 18; 


but as still in force (he has given me an answer, and I must rest satisfied with it). I 
do not see what Riickert could here find strange. Meyer is now right. 
1 Cf, Lucian. dial. d. 19, 1 &pdmAioas avrdy kat verixnas. 


o 


§40. THE TENSES. 273 


xi. 27; v.45 Mavojs, eis bv HAT lKaTe, in Whom you have (placed 
your hope) hoped, and still hope (in quo repositam habetis spem 
vestram). Similar instances are, 2 Cor. i. 10 els Ov HATLKaperv, 
1 Tim. vi. 17; Jude 6. As to éwpaxa Jno. ix. 37, ete., see note 
further on. 2Tim. iv. 8 nyamrnkotes thy eripaverav adtod who have 
loved, and therefore now love. The Pluperf. of such verbs has 
naturally the signification of the Imperfect, Luke xvi. 20. To 
this head we must by no means refer Jno. i. 84 cay é@paxa Kal 
pewapTupnKa, Where the latter Perfect appears to denote that the 
testimony concerning Christ given by John at the baptism stands 
complete, continues firm and valid: I have seen and have testified. 
Essentially the same explanation applies to the Perfects in Heb. 
vii. 6 (9), where it is manifest that more than a mere fact is in- 
tended to be related. 

b. After clauses which convey a supposition (e/, édy with a Fut. 
or Aor., seldom with a Particip.) to express an action stil future, 
but viewed in this event as (occurring forthwith and so) wholly 
completed ;1 as, Eurip. El. 686 e¢ waraicGels raya PCavacipov 
mecel, TEOVNKa eyo, Soph. Philoct. 75 and Liv. 21, 45 si eundem 
animum habueritis, vicumus, cf. Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 156; Ast, Plat. 
Polit. p. 470; Hm. Aristoph. nub. p. 175 sq.; Matthiae, Eurip. 
Med. p. 512 and Gr. 1125f.; Kri. 152. In the N.T. see Rom. 
xiv. 23 6 dvaxpwopevos, éav dayn, KaTaKéxpiTac is condemned, 
the sentence of condemnation has been (at the same moment) and 257 
remains pronounced against him, he lies under condemnation, ‘ed. 
iv. 14; 1 Cor. xiii. 1; 2 Pet. ii. 19, 20, and with a Participle Jno. 
iii. 18 6 py mictedar dn Kéxpitat, Rom. xiii. 8. On the other 
hand, the Perfect is not used for the Fut. in Jno. v. 24 weraBéBnev 
éx Tov Gavartovu eis THY Sony; the passage has no reference at all to 
a future event, but to something that has already commenced 245 
(éxer Swnv aiwmvov), cf. 1 Jno. iii. 14; Liicke, Comment. II. 52. Beh ed 
Further, in Jno. xvii. 10 Christ uses the word ded0Eacpas prolep- 
tically in reference to the disciples, who already believe, cf. xvi. 11 ; 
but in xiv. 7 Kal di’ apts ywockKeTe avTov Kal Ew padkaTte avtov must 
be rendered: from henceforth ye know him and have seen him, 
not with Kihnédl: eum mox accuratius cognoscetis et quasi oculis 
videbitis, cf. Demosth. Lacrit. 597 a. avOpém@, dv Hels ovTE Yy LV O- 
oKopmev ov? éEwpakapev momote. See, further, Liicke in loc. 

1 The N. T. does not contain a clear instance of the Hebrew prophetic Perfect ( Gesen. 
Lg. 764), which in the Sept. is usually rendered bya Future. Akin to it is the usage 
of the Greek augurs, who begin with the Fut. but continue in the Aorist, Iliad. 4, 


158 sqq.; Pind. Pyth. 4, 56; Isthm. 5, 51, see Bockh not. crit. p. 462. 
35 


274. § 40. THE TENSES. 


In Jas. v. 2 6 wAovros tpav céonme, kat 7a twaria tyav onrdéBpwra 
yéyovey the Perf. is not put for the Pres. or Fut.; but the case indicated 
by the Apostle in tadaitwp. tpov 7. émepxop. is viewed as already present, 
and consequently the onew of the riches as already completed. In Jno. 
XVli. 22 dédwxa does not signify tribwam ; Christ contemplates his life as 
terminated, his disciples have already assumed his place. In Luke x. 19 
dédwxa and didwpt would be equally appropriate ; Tdf. justly prefers the 
former. 

That the Perf. is used also for the Pluperf. (which is not impossible), 
Haab p. 95 erroneously attempts to prove by Jno. xii. 7 eis iv Huepay rod 
evradiacpov TernpyKev avTo; for here rernpyxev is to be regarded as strictly 
a Perfect (she has kept it, and accordingly uses it now), since Jesus means 
figuratively to represent ¢h¢s anointing as that which prepares him for the 
grave. ‘The reading, however, is doubtful. 


That the Perfects (and Aorists) of many verbs have inherently, and— 


according to established usage, the signification of the Present, is well 
known; and is explained by the (inchoative) primary meaning of these 
verbs (Fr. Rom. [. 254; Bengel on Rom. iii. 23) ; as, xéxryuae I possess, 
290 from «rdopor [acquire ; Kexotunua (I have fallen asleep) J am asleep, from 
kodopat fall asleep ; otda I know, from «idw I see; éotyxa I stand, from 
tant place, properly, I have placed myself (hence also 2 Thess. ii. 2 
eveoTnKkev 1) yépa tov Xp. cf. Palair. in loc., Rom. ix. 19 ris évOéornKxe who 
resists him? cf. xiii. 2; 2 Tim. iv. 6 ébéornxe) ; likewise éouxa Jas. i. 6, 23. 
The Plup. of such verbs then naturally becomes equivalent to an Imperfect, 
958 as elotyKecav Matt. xii. 46, noe Jno. ii. 9; xx. 9, etc. Also Kéxpaya. from 
ith el. kpaev has the meaning of a Present (Jno. i. 15), see Bttm. I. 57; Bhdy. 
279, and édpaxa sometimes signifies: J (have got a sight, and) see Jno. 
ix. 37; 1 Jno. iv. 20. But in Phil. iii. 7 #ynuoe (Mtth. 1139) is to be 
taken as properly a Preterite antithetical to #yotpar verse 8. 
246 Onthe other hand the Present jxw means, J have come, I am here (Mtth. 
bth ed, 1136) Jno. ii. 4; iv. 47; 1 Jno. v. 20, and so dxkovw may be sometimes 
rendered by audisse 1 Cor. xi. 18 (Xen. A. 5, 5, 8; Mem. 3, 5,9; Plat. 
Gorg.503c¢.; Philostr. Apoll. 2,8; see Lucian. fug. 7; Ast, Plat.legg. p.9 sq.; 
Franke, Demosth. p. 62). This, however, is the case only when the hear- 
ing (in effect) continues ; as we too say: J hear thou art sick, cf. 2 Thess. 
iii. 11 and Schoem. Plutarch. Cleom. p. 246.2 To denote the act of hear- 


1 Jn the N. T. this verb, in other tenses besides the Perfect, is occasionally translated 
incorrectly by possess. Luke xviii. 12 should be rendered, of all Z acquire, quae mihi 
redeunt ; and xxi. 19 by perseverance acquire, or you will acquire, your souls; they will 
then for the first time become your true property, not to be taken away. Schott now 
explains the passage rightly. As to 1 Thess. iv. 4, see de W. ette. Yet xr@mat appears 
to signify possideo in Aesop. 142, 2. As to koiuevta 1 Cor. xi. 30, which also is usually 
considered as equivalent to keroiunvtat, see above, 2c, p. 267. 

2 Just so ruvOdvouat I understand, Demosth. Calipp. p. 719. ete. 


aria, « 


g 40, THE TENSES. 275 


ing completed in time past, a Greek must say dkjxoa. “Aréxw, in the 
same way, may be translated by accepisse, Matt. vi. 2, 5,16; Phil. iv. 18, 
it is properly, however, like weghaben in German (have already, or in full, 
received), Wyttenbach, Plutarch. Mor. Il. 124; Palair. p. 25. 

5. The Aorist (HE. A. Fritsch, de aoristi viac potest. Fref. 1837. 
4to.; H. Schmidt, der griech. Aorist ins. Verhiltnissen zu d. tibrigen 
Zeitformen. Halle, 1845. 8vo.) is used, 

a. In narration for the Pluperfect (Poppo, Thue. I. I. 157; Jacob, 
Lucian. Toxar. p. 98 and Lucian. Alex. p. 106; Kihner, Gr. II. 
79): 

a. in subordinate clauses specifying time; as, Acts v. 24 as 
nKovaav T. A\Oyous ... Sintropouv, Luke vil. 1 ézrevds) etAjpwoev Ta 
pyyata... eishrOev (ii. 39; xxii. 66; Jno. vi. 16; ix. 18; xiii. 12; 
xxi. 9; Acts xxi. 26), cf. Thuc. 1, 102 01 "A@nvaios ... érrevds) ave- 
xopnoav... Evupayor éyévoyto, Aesch. ep. 1. p. 121 ¢.; Mdy. 113 f. 

8. in relative clauses ; as, Acts i. 2 évTevAdpevos Tots aTroaToXoLs 
ovs €FeXéEaTo, ix. 35 [ Matt. il. 9 dv efdov, xxvii. 55D aitwes HKo- 
hovOncav| Jno. xi. 80; iv. 45, 46; Luke xix.15; xxiv.1; Mdv. 
114. Thus probably are the Aorists to be rendered also in a clause 
with 670, Jno. vi. 22; see the expositors. The reason of this usage 
is, that the Greeks (who in such cases seldom or never employ the 
Pluperfect, Bhdy. 380) viewed the occurrence merely as past, not 
in relation to another occurrence also past. The Aor. is thus used 
in independent clauses, when they contain supplementary remarks, 291 
Matt. xiv. 3 f. Whether this also applies to Jno. xviii. 24, cannot 
be decided on grammatical grounds. In Matt. xxvi. 48 &&wxer is 
probably not to be rendered as a Pluperf. (Fr.), see BCrus. and 
Mey. On the contrary, the Pluperf. is regularly employed in such 
clauses even in the N. T.: Jno. xi. 19, 573 viii. 20; Acts ix. 21; 
Mark xiv. 44; Matt. vii. 25. 


With very great want of judgment Haab S. 95 (cf. also Pasor S. 235) 
refers to this head a number of other passages, in which either the Aor. 959 
retains its original import, or is owing to a somewhat different account of Tth ed. 
one Evangelist which must not be arbitrarily harmonized with the others’ 
narrative ; as, Jno. xviii. 12 cvvéAaPBov tov “Incodv. According to the other 
Evangelists (Matt. xxvi. 50f.; Mark xiv. 46) the seizing and binding 
preceded Peter’s striking with his sword. John, however, may wish to 
imply that Peter interposed with his sword at the moment when the guard 
were laying hands on Jesus. On Matt. xxvii. 87 kat éréO0nxav éravw THs 
kedadys avttod tiv airiay airod yeypapypéevnv de Wette very appropriately 
remarks: “'This, as respects the matter of fact, is to be considered as a 247 
Plup. — (though we must admit it to be possible that the narrator of this, 6th ed, 


276 § 40. THE TENSES. . 


not himself an eye-witness, may have supposed that the affixing of this 
superscription did not take place until this time), but according to the 
language it is a simple preterite. Zhe narrator here does not observe the 
order of time. ‘That the Evangelist does not exactly follow the order of 
time is obvious besides from this, that after he has made the soldiers sit 
down to watch Jesus, he proceeds vs. 38 to introduce the crucifixion of the 
two robbers : tore oravpotvra, «.7.’. Should this also be regarded as a 
Plup.?” In Mark iii. 16 éré6nxe TO Siuwv dvoyia UHeérpov is not to be 
translated by ¢mposuerat ; for Mark had not yet recorded the circumstance, 
and it must not be thus as a matter of course supplied from John (i. 48). 

» Also in Acts vii. 5 édwxey is not to be taken as a Plup.; this is manifest 
from the antithesis: he gave not... but promised. It seems equally un- 
necessary to take the Aor. as Plup. in Acts iv. 4; viii. 2; xx.12.. As 
to Mark xvi. 1 compared with Luke xxiii. 56, see Fr. 

That the Aorist stands for the Perfect cannot be shown with certainty 
from any passage. Luke i. 1 érewdimep moAXol érexeipnoay ... edoge Kapol 
must be taken in the narrative style: as many undertook... JI too de- 
termined, etc. So also ii. 48 ztéxvov, ti éroinoas ... eCnrovpev oe. More 
plausible instances are the following: xiv. 18 éypov jydépaca, 19 Levyn Body 
qyopaca ete., Phil. iii. 12 ody dre dn AaBov 7 Hn TeTeelwpar, Jno. xvil. 4 
éyd oe eddSaca ext THs ys, TO epyov éreAciwoa, etc. But in all. these the 
action is exhibited merely as come to pass, as occupying a single point of 

292 time past, simply as gone by, (in Luke, as above, in contrast with a present 
action) I bought a field, a yoke of oxén, etc. In Phil. as above in particular, 
é\aBov seems to denote merely the attaining of the goal as an honorable 
achievement, while veveA. denotes its consequences. Likewise in Rom. 
xiv. 9; Rev. ii. 8 the Aorists are simply narrative, and in reference to the 
death of Christ the Perfect could not even be used here. In Mark xi. 17 
the Perf. is now in the text; but the Aorist also would be appropriate, see 
Fr. As to Greek usage, cf. Bockh, Pind. III. 185; Schaef. Eurip. Phoen. 
p- 15; Mtth. 1118. It often depends on the writer which of the two 

960 tenses he will use, as the difference between them is sometimes very 

ith ed. slight, cf. Xen. Mem. 1, 6,14; Dion. H. IV. 2820 ; Alciphr. 3, 46. (The 
Codd. occasionally vary —as well those of the Greek authors, see e.g. 
Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 434, 566, as those of the N. T. — between the Aorist 
and the Perfect, e.g. Jno. vi. 32; 1 Cor. ix. 15).? 


1 Markland (explicatt. vett. aliq. loc. in the Leipzig reprint of his edition of Eurip. 
Suppl. p. 326) erroneously refers to this head Matt. xxviii. 17 of 5& édferacay also, 
on which see Valcken. annot. crit. p. 350. 

2 Tf in Matt. xxi. 20 was be taken as an exclamation (quam), ééjpavrat might have 
been expected instead of éénpdv@n, as in Mark xi. 21 according to good Codd. But the 
latter passage is not entirely parallel, and Matt. xxi. 20 is probably to be rendered : 
how did the fig-tree wither suddenly? 'They desire an explanation of what (according to 
this Evangelist’s narrative) had taken place before their eyes. The disciples therefore 
allude to the fact of Eypaw., and not to the consequences. 


§ 40. THE TENSES. OTT 


b. It is only in appearance that the Aorist is used for the Future 


248 


(Hm. Vig. p. 747. cf. above 4.b.),! e.g. Jno. xv. 6 ea pur) Tus pelvy Mth ed. 


év éuol, EBAHOH EEw ws TO KAjpa in such case (should that have 
happened) he (was) ts cast away, not he will be cast away (the not 
abiding has this as its instantaneous consequence: whoever has 
severed himself from Christ, resembles a branch broken off and 
thrown away. With this BrAnPjvar the Presents cvvayovow etc. are 
connected). Cf. as to this passage Hm. de emend. p. 192 sq. and 
Vig. as above. Rev. x. T é6tav méAXn carrifew, cal éreXécOn TO 
pvornpcov, in the mouth of the angel describing the future: then is 
finished the mystery, 1 Cor. vii. 28. Of. Kurip. Med. 78 a7@Xo- 
peo ap’, eb Kakov Tposoicopev véov Twarai@, Plat. Gorg. 484 a. 
The Aor. never occurs in this sense without an antecedent clause. 
In Jno. xvii. 18 aréoretda is I sent them forth (which took place 
when the apostles were chosen). In xiii. 31 Jesus says: viv édofd- 
on 6 vids TOU avOpwrrov, the traitor Judas having gone away and as 
it were already completed his treason. In Mark iii. 21 é€éo7n has 
the force of the Present insanit, cf. vs. 22. Jude 14 is a verbatim 
quotation from the (Greek) book of Enoch, and the Aor. represents 
the coming of Christ as having already taken place. In Rom. 
vill. 30 édd0€ace is used, because he in reference to whom God has 
completed the dscaody has also already obtained from God the 
do&dfeoPar, (though the Sofa as an actual possession will not be 
imparted to him until later). 


1. Nowhere in the N. T. does the Aorist express what 7s wont to be 
done (Schaef. Demosth. I. 247; Wex, Antig. I. 326; Mdv. 110). In Luke 
i. 01 God’s peyadeta (vs. 49) are spoken of as already accomplished, only 
the respective parallel members must not be taken too rigidly in a historical 
sense. In Jno. vill. 29 otk ddijKé pe povov 6 warnp means the Father left 
me not alone (on the earth), that is, he granted me, besides having sent me 
(zéuwas), also (hitherto) his unceasing aid. In 1 Jno. ii. 27 it is equally 
unnecessary to take édidagev as denoting wont to teach; Liicke in his 2d 
ed. has correctly explained the passage. As to Rom. viii. 30 see above. 


293 


Heb. x. 5, 6 is a verbatim quotation from Ps. xl. applied to the fact of 261 
Christ’s <isepy. cis tov koopov. Heb. i. 9 (Sept.) aydanoas dixavootvyy ete. Tt ed 


contains the reason for the annexed dua totro éypicé oe 6 Geos, and the 
former is as strict an Aorist as the latter. Sooner might Jas. 1. 11 
avéretXev 6 Hts ov TO Kav’owu Kal EENnpave Tov xdproy etc. be referred 


to this head (cf. 1 Pet. i. 24), as has already been done by Piscator; but 


1 In 1 Cor. xv. 49 eépopécauey might seem to stand for the Fut. Perf. ; but Paul places 
himself in the point of view of the Parousia, and speaks in the narrative style of the life 
passed on earth. 


278 § 40. THE TENSES. 


the Aorists are narrative (representing the fact as having taken place), 
and taken together indicate the rapid succession of the events: the sun 
rose, and (immediately) withered etc. (Bornem. Xen. Apol. p. 58), — 
scarcely was the sun risen, when it withered. Moreover, passages such 
as Eph. v. 29 form the transition to this use of thé Aorist, which can be 
easily traced to the primary import of the tense (Hm. de emend. rat. 

949 187). In Jas. i. 24 xarevonoey éavtov Kat deAyAvbe Kal ciOéws eredAabero 

bik ed. Szrotos Hv neither the Aorist nor the Perfect is put for the Present, but the 
case supposed for illustration in vs. 23 is assumed as matter of fact, and 
the Apostle falls into the strain of narration. 

2. Quite unnecessarily Pott maintains that in 1 Cor. ix. 20 éyevouny 
rots ‘lovdatois ws “Iovdatos the Aor. is used for the Present. The Apostle 
states how he has hitherto acted. Neumann on 1 Cor. iv. 18, and many 
expositors on Jas. il. 6 jrywaoare (which even Gebser renders by the 
Present), have made the same mistake. Tholuck’s present view of Jno. 
xv. 8 édofac6y is more correct than his former opinion; the Aorist is 
proleptic, as in Eph. ii.6; Rom. viii. 30. In Matt. iii. 17 (xii. 18; xvii. 5; 
2 Pet. i. 17) Sept. the Aorist etddxnoa may be taken naturally: my good 
pleasure fixed upon him, I took him into favor; see Mey. Hm. Vig. 
746, No. 209, treats merely of poetic usage, and his remarks have with 
great discrimination been rendered still more clear and precise by Moller 
in the Zeitschrift f. Alterth.-Wiss. 1846, No. 154-156. 

In epistles éypaya, as is well known, is used for ypdadu, like scripsi in 
Latin, in reference to the epistle which is just being written. In the same 
way éereuiva mist is used, out of regard for the fact that to the receiver of 

294 the epistle the wéuzw has become an ézeua. As to the latter, compare 
in the N.T. Acts xxiii. 80; Phil. ii. 28, dvéreuwa Philem. 11, probably 
also cuverréuiapev 2 Cor. vill. 18 (Demosth. ep. 3; Alciphr. 3, 30 and 41) ; 
as similar, 7BovAnbyv 2 Jno. 12. On the other hand, not even éeypawa in 
1 Cor. vy. 11 can be quoted as an instance of that use. This Aorist, rather, 
refers in all cases either to a previous epistle (1 Cor. v. 9; 2 Cor. ii. 3, 4, 9; 
vii. 12; 3 Jno. 9), or to an epistle already brought to its conclusion (Rom. 
xv. 15; Philem. 19; Gal. vi. 11; 1 Pet. v.12), or even to a. series, of 
verses just finished (1 Cor.ix.15; 1 Jno. ii. 21,26; v.13). For an epistle 
in course of being written ypdd@w is more usual, 1 Jno. ii. 12, 15; 1 Cor. 
Vel 440 x1V. or % 2. Cora xii 10, etc. As tol Jno. i. 13f. see Liieke 
In the Greek writers also this use of the Aor. (or Perf.) for the Pres. is 
not carefully observed ; cf. Diog. L. 7,9. See Wyttenbach, Plut. Moral. 
I. 231 sq. Lips. 

262 3. Lastly, the Aor. is not employed de conatu* (Kiihnél) in Mark ix. 17 

thal. nveyka Tov vidv pov. ‘These words denote: / brought my son to thee (and 
I present him now to thee). That e&AGe Jno. xi. 44 need not be thus 


1 Schaef. Plut. TV. 398 declares himself against Hm. Soph. Aj. 1105. Yet ef. £m. 
Iphig. Taur. p. 109. 


‘ § 40. THE TENSES. 279 


explained, has been perceived by Kiihn6l himSelf; and Tholuck very prop- 
erly takes no notice of such an interpretation. On Matt. xxv. 1 see Mey. 


6. The Fururs ! does not always denote pure and actual futurity, 
but sometimes what is possible (as futurity and possibility are 
closely related) and in fact what may or should take place (ethical 
possibility), Hm. Vig. p. 747; Jacob, Lucian. Tox. p. 184; Kru. 
156. This is particularly the case in questions. Owing, however, to 
the great resemblance between the Future and the Aor. Subjunctive 
and the variations in MSS., the passages in question are not all 
established. Luke xxii. 49 xupce, e¢ watafopev év payatpa are we to 
smite, etc.? (strictly, shall we— with thy permission — smite, wilt 
thou allow us to smite? cf. Eurip. lo 771 e’zwpev 4 cvydpev 3 ) 7 
Spdacopev;), Rom. x. 14 ras ody émikadécovtat, els Ov ovK ErlaTEU- 
cav ; how can they call, etc. ? ili. 6 ézret as Kpuvet 0 Peds TOV Kdcpop ; 
Jno. vi. 68 ; Matt. xii. 26; 1 Tim. iii. 5 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 16 (Plat. Lys. 213 ¢. 
tl ovv 61) xpnooueba, Lucian. Tox. 47 was otv... xpnoopeba Tots 
mapovot). On the other hand, in Matt. vii. 24 ouowwow retains the 
simple force of the Fut., as does roAwjowin Rom.xv.18. In Rom. 
v. 7 something is expressed which is never likely to take place. 
1 Cor. viii. 8 is similar. In Rom. vi. 1 and 15 the Subjunctive is 
the preferable reading, as also in Luke iii. 10; Jno. vi. 5; but in 
Rom. vi. 2 the authority for &)cowev predominates, and the Future 
here forms a distinct contrast to the Aor. dme@avoyev. Mark iv. 13 
and 1 Cor. xiv. 7 are strict Futures. In Matt. vii. 16 éuyvacecbe 
does not contain a precept (ye shall), but a simple reference to 
what time itself will show: by their fruits ye will know them (as 
ye observe them, in the course of your observations). In Rom. 
vi. 14 the Fut. expresses an assurance and is essentially connected 
with the Apostle’s reasoning. 1 Cor. xv. 29 ével ti mouncovc wy 
of Bartilopevot vTrép THV vexpov is probably to be rendered: else 
Cif Christ is not risen) what will they do (what are they about to do, 
what do they purpose) who get themselves baptized over the dead (are 
therefore in such case deluded)? The Pres. zrovodcw is manifestly 
a correction. ‘The phrase ri ody époduev always means quid dice- 
mus? not quid dicamus. 1 Cor. xiv. 15 rposevEowas TO Trvevpate, 
mposevfouat dé Kai vol expresses not a resolution (mposevEwpar is 
probably only a correction), but a Christian maxim which the be- 


1 The 3d Fut. Pass. rexpdtoua: occurring once (Luke xix. 40) in not a few Codd. 
stands for the 1st Fut., which in this verb is not in use, and has not the meaning which 
this form has in other cases (Mtth. 1118 f.; Mdv. 114; Janson, de graeci serm. paulo 
post futuro. Rastenburg, 1844. 4to.). 


250 
6th ed, 


295 


263 
Tth ed. 


280 $40, THE TENSES. 


liever intends to follow, and is more decided than the Subjunctive. 
In 2 Cor. iii. 8 éorat refers to future d0fa. (As to such phrases as 
érews ETOYwacopev and Ti aipjcopat ov yvwpitw, where the Subjunc- 
tive also would be suitable, see § 41 a. 4, p. 285 and b. 4, p. 299.) 
In the phrase é€peé tus dicat aliquis 1 Cor. xv. 35; Jas. ii. 18, the 
Fut. denotes a merely supposable case. But the Greek idiom is 
here more precise than the Latin: some one will say, I foresee it, 
I expect nothing else. So épets ody dices igitur Rom. ix. 19; xi. 19. 
Heb. xi. 82 émireives we Sunyovpevov 0 xpovos is decidedly to be taken 
as a Future: time (I foresee) will fail me (defictet me tempus, 
Philostr. her. p. 686 émrurevpes we ) Pov, cf. also longum est nar- 
251 rare for the German-Latin idiom longum esse¢ ete.).!_ Also in Luke 
hel. xi. 5 tis €& bwav eer Hirov al Topeva eta Tpos avTOV pecovUKTIOU 
the Fut. is appropriately used ; take away the interrovative form 
and the ordinary Future remains: none of you will go to his 
friend at midnight, such importunity will never take place. Lastly, 
in Matt. v. 89, 41; xxiii. 12 the notion of possibility is connected 
rather with éstis than with the Fut.; and in Jas. ii. 10 the best 
Codd. [Sin. also] have the Subjunctive. (It would be altogether 
incongruous to take the Future as indicating nothing more than a 
wishin Rom. xvi. 20; Phil. iii. 15; iv. 7, 9,19; Matt. xvi. 22.) 


On the use of the Fut. for the Imperative, see § 43, 5, p. 315. 

296 Some interpreters have preposterously asserted that the Fut. is used for 
the Preterite in Rev.iv.9 dravy 8ecovet 7a baa ddgav ... TO Kabnuevy ext 
Tod Opovov ... wecovvrat ot elkoot Técoapes TpeTPUTEpor, etc.; but the passage 
must be rendered: when (as often as) the beasts shall give glory ... shall 
fall down. On the other hand, the Fut., in expressing general truths, 
sometimes very nearly assumes the import of the Present; as, Gal. ii. 16 
e& épywv vouov ov dixawOyoerac Taca caps, Rom. iii. 20: this is a rule which 
(since the introduction of Christianity) well hold true in the world. Sub- 
stantially so also in Rom. iii. 30 ézeéwep els 6 Geds, Os OtKarmoet TeEpiTopy 
ex mlotews etc., where dixaroty is regarded as an act of God which in the 
Christian method of salvation will be constantly thus realized. In Luke 
i. 37 ddvvarycet is used, in an allusion to the O.'T., of that which belongs 
to no particular time, but will always hold true (Theocr. 27,9; see Hm. 
emend. rat. p. 197), cf. Rom. vii. 3. But in Matt. iv. 4 Gjocerat after Deut. 
viii. 3 denotes rather a rule established by God: shall live. 

Note 1. The connection of different tenses by xaé (Poppo, Thue. I. I. 
274 sq.; Reisig, Oed. Col. 419 ; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 700; Stallb. Plat. 
Euthyphr. p. 59 a.), which has already been illustrated incidentally in the 


1 The case is different when the thought is expressed in the Optative with ay, as in 
Dion. H. 10, 2086 émiAciror &y me 6 Tis NuEepas Xpdvos. 


§ 41. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 981 


above examples, is partly to be accounted for by the fact that when an 264 
author is writing without rigorous exactness any one of several tenses ‘th el 
may be employed without difference in the sense; and is partly intentional 
(Heb. ii. 14; 1 Cor. x. 4; xv. 4; Jas. i. 24; Jno. iii. 16; Phil. iii. 7 sq.; 
1 Pet. iv. 6, etc.). The former, perhaps, is the case in Rey., as iii. 3 ; 
xi. 10; xii.4; xvi. 21, etc. In none of these passages are the tenses used 
incorrect; and should any one discover something altogether extraordinary 
in such combinations (as e.g. Eichhorn, Einl. ins N. T. I. 378), he would 
only betray his defective knowledge of the Greek language. See my 
exeget. Studien I. 147 f. 

Note 2. The tenses are used in the significations above elucidated for 
the most part only in the Indicative (and Participle) (Hm. emend. p. 189). 
In the other moods, particularly the Subjunctive, Optative, Imperative, the 
Aorist rarely denotes past time (1 Pet. iv. 67), but generally retains, in 
distinction from the Present, only the notion of transientness or instanta- 
neousness (cf. Pres. and Aor. Jno. iii. 16) Hm. Vig. 748, without refer- 
euce to any definite time, Rost 087; Mdvy. 109. 


§41. THE INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE MOODS.' 959 

6th ed. 

1. According to Hermann, these moods are distinguished from 297 
each other as follows: The Indicative denotes what is actual, the 
Subjunctive and Optative what is possible merely : — the Subjunc- 
tive. what is objectively possible (the realization of which depends 
on circumstances) ;? the Optative, what is subjectively possible 
(simply conceived of, as e.g. a wish),? Hm. emend. rat. I. 205 sqq. ; 
ad Vig. 901 sq., more fully de particula ay p. 76 sq.;* ef. also Schnei- 
der, Vorles. I. 230 ff.° With Klotz, ad Devar., we have adhered to 


1Cf. K. H, A. Lipsius, comm. de modorum usu in N. T. P. I. Lips. 1827. 8vo. 

2 «Tn conjunctivo sumitur res experientia comprobanda ...; conjunctivus est debere 
quid fieri intelligentis ac propterea exspectantis quid eveniat ” Hm. partic. &y p. 77. 

8 Klotz, Devar. II. 104: Optativus modus per se non tam optationis vim in se continet, 
quam cogitationis omnino, unde proficiscitur etiam omnis optatio. Hm. partic. dy 
p. 77: Optativus est cogitantis quid fieri, neque an fiat neque an possit fieri quaerentis. 

4P.77: Apertum est, in indicativo veritatem facti ut exploratam respici, in con- 
junctivo rem sumi experientia comprobandam, in optativo veritatis rationem haberi 
nullam, sed cogitationem tantummodo indicari. How Kiihner combines this distinction 
between the Subjunctive and Optative with an original temporal import of both cannot 
be here explained in detail (Griech. Gr. II. 87 f.). 

® In the following works views quite different from this are maintained ; W. Scheuerlein, 
iiber den Charakter des Modus in der gr. Sprache. Halle 1842. 4to. (a Program). 
W. Baumlein, iiber die gr. Modi ynd die Partikeln xev u. &v. Heilbronn 1846. 8vo. (see 
Jahn, Jahrb. Bd. 47. S. 353 f. and Zeitschr. f. Alterthumswiss. 1848. 104-106; 1849. 
30-33). Aken, Grundziige der Lehre von Tempus u. Modus im Griech. Giistrow 1850, 

36 


265 this theory, as nothing 7 all respects better seems yet to have been : 


FS2, §4la. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND ra 


ith el. propounded ; — least of all by Madvig. 


298 


In the N. T. these moods in their main distinctions, are ennai 


with strict propriety (Hwiid to the contrary ;— whom Kihndl ad | 


Acta p. 777 quotes with approval). Only it is noticeable that the 
Optative, as in the later Greek authors who do not aim at classic 
refinement, is partially set aside (more still than in Josephus), 
and in certain constructions is superseded by the Subjunctive.t 


a. IN INDEPENDENT PROPOSITIONS. 


2. The use of the INDICATIVE in independent propositions is very 


253 simple even in classic Greek. In reference to the N.T., accordingly, 


bth ed. 


we have on this head but two remarks to make : 

a. The haely Indicative is sometimes employed, as in Latin 
(Zumpt, 8 .446), where we should use the Subjunctive; as, 2 Cor. 
xii. 11 eyo @hevrov bh vuav avvicracPar debebam contenttean 
I ought to have been commended, Matt. xxv. 27 et ce Baretv thou 
oughtest to have put etc. (2 Cor. ii. 83; Acts xxiv. 19; xxvii. 21), 
Matt. xxvi. 9 7Svvato TodTo mpaOjvas etc., xxvi. 24 Karov hv abTo 
el ovx éyevvnOn it were good for him (would have been), satius erat, 
2 Pet. ii. 21 «petrrov Hv avdrots pr) ereyvaKévar THY OOoV THs SuxaLoovYNS 
(Aristoph. nub. 1215; Xen. Anab. 7, 7,40; Philostr. Apoll. 7, 30 ; 
Lucian. dial. mort. 27,9; Diog. L. 1, 64), Acts xxii 22 ov yap 
KaOynKev avtov Sv he should not have lived (i.e. he ought to have 
been put to death long ago), non debebat or debuerat vivere, ef. 
Mtth. 1138 f; Stallb. Plat. Symp. p. 74. The Greeks and Latins 
here merely state what, independently of circumstances, was proper, 
what should or should not have taken place; and the reader, by 
combining this statement with the actual fact, infers the disapproval 
of the latter. The Germans (and English) start from the present 
state of the matter, and by the Subjunctive express disapproval of 
its origin. Both moods therefore are correct in thought. It must 
not, however, be supposed that in such Greek constructions there 
is an omission of ay; for such expressions to the mind of a Greek 
exclude all thought of a condition under which something would 
have been good or must have happened ; see Hm. partic. dv § 12. 
4to. Cf. also Docderlein on Moods and Conjunctions, in his Reden u. Anufsiitze. 
Erlangen 1843. 8vo. nr. 9. , 

1 Modern Greek has, as is well known, wholly given up the Optative ; and it is still 
a question how far it was used in the popular speech of the ancient Greeks. It is often 


the case that certain forms and constructions embodying refinements of the literary 
diction are persistently shunned by the people. 


eS 4 
er iA ‘ 
* bee 

ce 


§4la. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 983 


. ~“EBovdopny ete. vellem, (without av), is to be explained some- 
what differently, e.g. Acts xxv. 22 éBouddunv cal adtos Tod avOpwrrov 286 
axodoat I too could wish to hear the man (the account of him having hed. 

awakened my curiosity), Aristoph. ran. 866; Aeschin. Ctesiph. 
274b.; Arrian. Epict. 1,19,18; Lucian. dial. mort. 20,4; abdic. , 
1; Char. 6, etc. There is expressed here, not a desire which has 
been active at some former time merely (under different circum- 
stances) volebam, but a wish still felt by the speaker. This, how- 
ever, is not stated directly (volo), for this can be done only when 
the performance is viewed as dependent solely on the will (1 Tim. 
ii. 8; 1 Cor. xvi. 7; Rom. xvi. 19, etc.) ; nor by means of éBovAcunv 
i av, for this would imply the counterpart but I will not, Hm. partic. 
av p. 66sq., nor yet by the much weaker BovAroluny dv (Xen. Oec. 299 
6,12; Krii. 163), velim, I should wish; but definitely: JZ was 
wishing, wished, that is, if it were proper, if thou wouldst permit 
it (and wish accordingly on this assumption), Bhdy. 8. 374; 
Kiihner II. 68, (a conditional clause, therefore, being understood ).1 
So also Rom. ix. 5 nuxyopuny yap adtos eyo avabepa eivat amo Tod 
Xpictov vrep Tov adeAdav pov optarem ego etc., and Gal. iv. 20, 
see my Comment. in loc. (It is otherwise in 2 Cor.i.15; Philem. 
13, 14, where the Aorists express what actually took place, and in 254 
2 Jno. 12 nBovrAnOnv.) Oth ed, 


In Jno. iv. 4 etc. ee is to be taken as a genuine Imperf. Indicative, 
denoting a real fact. On the contrary, in Heb. ix. 26 ézet €deu airov 
moAAdkis wabetv the particle dv might have been expected, as something is 
expressed that according to a certain supposition must have taken place. 
The Codd., however, do not give it, and it can be omitted,—just as we 
say: for (otherwise), if that were the design, he must have often suffered 
(cf. Hm. Eurip. Bacch. p. 152; Bhdy. 390, see § 42, 2). In Rom. xi. 6; 
1 Cor. vii. 14; v. 10, the Indicatives Pres. after ére¢ (otherwise, alioquin) 
are usually rendered as Subjunctives. ‘The meaning, however, of the first 
two passages is simply this: then (in that case ie. if €€ epywv) grace is no 
longer grace ; then (in case the husband is not sanctified in the wife) are 
your children unelean. But in 1 Cor. y. 10 nearly all the better Codd. 
[Sin. also] read ddeirere. See, further, Ast, Plat. lege. p. 162 sq. ; Stallb. 
Plat. Euthyphr. p. 57. 


In 1 Cor. vii. 7 O€Xw zavras dvOpwrovs clvas os Kat euavrov the Indic. 


1 Schoemann ad Isacum p. 435 takes a different view: Addita particula a voluntatem 
significamus a conditione suspensam : vellem, si liceret; omissa autem particula etiam 
conditionis notio nulla subintelligitur, sed hoc potius indicatur, vere nos illud voluisse, 
etiamsi omittenda fuerit yoluntas, scilicet quod frustra nos velle cognoyimus. This 
nice distinction, however, might not be applicable to all passages. 


267 


7th ed, 


300 


255 
6th ed. 


984 §4la. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 


Jédw is not used, as Pott maintains, for OéAoys or AOedov. Paul actually 
entertained this wish, directing his attention meantime merely to the 
advantage that would thus accrue to men (Christians), and not to the 
obstacles. Had he referred to the latter he must have said: J could wish, 
or J could have wished, velim or vellem. Baumgarten has understood the 
passage correctly. In the same way we must explain 1 Cor. vii. 28, where 
deiSopar is likewise explained by Pott as equivalent to dedoiunv av. All 
recent expositors have correctly explained 2 Cor. xii. 9 dpxet cou 7 yapis 
pov, Which Luther inaccurately renders: be satisfied with my grace. The 
force of the Indicative has been exaggerated in another way in 1 Cor. v. 7: 
KaQas éore aCvpot esse debetis ; incorrectly, see Mey. 

3. The Indicative Pres. sometimes occurs also b. in direct ques- 
tions where in Latin the Subjunctive Gn German the auxiliary verb 
sollen) would be used ; as, Jno. xi. 47 ri rovodpev ; Ort obTOS 6 dvOpa- 
Tos TOAMAa onjueta Tolet, quid faciamus ? what are we todo? Lucian, 
pisc. 10; asin. 25. The Ind., however, here strictly denotes that | 
something must undoubtedly be done (forthwith) ; so we say, 
what are we doing? more resolute and emphatic than what shall 
wedo? Ti rower is the question of one who invites to delibera- 
tion (cf. Acts iv. 16) ; 7¢ vrovodmev, on the contrary, is the language 
of one who on behalf of those concerned assumes the determination 
not only in general to do something, but also to do something definite, 
and desires simply to draw out a declaration of the specific thing. 
[That this distinction is not artificial, as Bttm. Gramm. d. N. T. 
Sprachgebr. 8. 180 asserts, has been justly acknowledged by Mey., 
also, inloc.] On this (rhetorical) Ind. Pres., which mainly occurs 


in conversation, see Heind. Plat. Gorg. p. 109 and Theaet. p. 449 ; 


Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 141; Bhdy. 396. 

The Greeks go still further, and even say wiévopev we drink i.e. 
we are to drink, when they mean to proceed to drink forthwith, when 
the cup has been already lifted, up (Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 559). 
Gal. vi. 10 however, épyafoue0a to ayaOov, which is the reading 
in good Codd. viz. AB and which Lchm. has printed [but only in 
his stereotyp. ed.] can hardly serve as an instance of this usage ; 
see Mey. As to Jno. xxi. 3, cf. § 40, 2, p. 265. 


The meaning of 1 Cor. x. 22 7) wapalyndotpev tov Kiptov ; which Schott 
still renders by the Subjunctive, is probably: or do we provoke God? is 
that the meaning of our conduct, to awaken God’s wrath? zapag. expresses, 
not what is still to take place (as Riick. takes it [and recently even Bttm. 
Gramm. d. N. T. Sprachgebr. S. 181 considers as not inappropriate]), but 
what is already actually taking place. Rom. viii. 24 6 Bdérev tus, th Kar 
éedriger; is not (Schott) quare insuper speret? for dropping the question 


§4la. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 985 


the passage means, not. he may no longer hope for; but: he no longer 
hopes for. On the Ind. Fut. for the Subjunctive, see § 40, 6, p. 279. 

The Indicatives in Jas. v.13 kaxoradet tis év tpiv,... doOevet tus &v 
tuiv, denoting a case represented as real, are attended with no difficulty : 
some one ts afflicted among you, ... some one is sick among you, ete. 
Demosth. cor. 351 c¢. (where a point of interrogation is not necessary, 268 
Krii. 160). In Greek authors, even a Preterite is used in this way, Tthed. 
Mtth. 1155. 


4. The SuBsuNcTIVE is used in independent propositions , 

a. When an invitation or resolution (conjunct. adhortativus) 
is expressed (Mtth. 1169); as, Jno. xiv. 31 éyeipecOe, dywpmev 
evrevoev, xix. 24; 1 Cor. xv. 32 dPdyopev Kal Tiwperv, avpiov yap 
aTrolvncKopev, Phil. iti. 15 éc0e ody TéXEL0L, TOUTO Ppovaperv, 1 Thess. 
Vv. 6 ypnyopamev Kai vipwpev, Luke viii. 22. The Codd. occasion- 
ally vary between the Subjunct. and the Fut. Heb. vi. 8; 1 Cor. 
xiv. 15; Jas. iv. 13, but in the first two passages there is prepon- 
derating evidence in favor of the Subjunctive. 

b. In undetermined questions (conjunct. deliberativus, Mtth. 1170; 
Bhdy. 396; Kihner I. 102 f.); as, Mark xii. 14 ddpev 4) ur) Sdpev; 
shall we give or not give? Rom. vi. 1 émipévopev 7H duaptia; 1 Cor. 
xi. 22; also in the 3d and 2d Pers., as Luke xxiii. 31 ed év 76 dypo 301 
EUAM TadtTa TroLovaL, év TO Enpw tl yévntac; and Matt. xxvi. 54 
TOS TANPOOAdcW ai ypadati ; how shall the Scriptures be fulfilled ? 
XXiil. 33 was huynte (Jno. v. 47 var.). Under this head comes the 
Subjunctive in certain set phrases ; as, Luke ix. 54: 0édes elr@pev 
Top KaTaPivat a7 Tod ovpavod ; (Hm. de ellips. p. 183) wilt thou 
that we, are we to hid etc., Matt. xiii. 28; xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12; 
Luke xxii. 9. Cf. Eurip. Phoen. 722 Botnre TpaTopat dj odovs 
addas twas ; Xen. Mem. 2, 1, 1 Bovre: cxoradpev ; Aesch. Ctesiph. 
297 c.; Lucian. dial. m. 20,3. See also Matt. vii. 4 ades €xBarw TO 
kappos etc. 1 Cor. iv. 21. It is a mistake to supply in such cases 
wa oromes (Lehmann, Lucian. III. 466). There is no ellipsis, any 
more than, for example, in the German es scheint sie kommen, tt 
seems they are coming. In some passages, Codd. have the Fut., 
which, in these phrases, Greek authors do employ (Lucian. navig. 
26), though not very frequently ; see Lob. Phryn. p. 734, and Fr. 
Matt. p. 465, 761 (from the Sept. see Heb. viii. 5) cf. e.g. Exod. 


A 4 
xxv. 40 dpa trouncers Kata Tov TUToOD etc. ’ 


In questions, the Future instead of the Conjunct. deliberativus of the 256 
dd Pers. is, according to the testimony of the Codd., more frequent in the 6th od, 
N.T., see above, § 40, 6, and is to be retained even in Rom. x. 14f.; 


986  §A4la. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. | : 


although in Greek authors the Subjunctive, in this person also, nét ih : 
frequently occurs (Stallb. Plat. Men. p. 103; Krii. 161): Soph. “Aj. 403<" 
mot tis pvyn; Oed. Col. 170 wot ris dpovridos XO ;. (1st Pers. vs. 311)$ 


Plato, Soph. 225a.; Arrian. Epict. 3, 22,96. In Luke xi. & the Fut.Ind. «_ . 
and the Subjunctive are connected, ris && tov €€er didov.xat top cvoeTae 4 


mpos airov... kal elry air; see Mtth. 1171; Hm. partic. dv'p. 875 Stallb. ” 
Plat. Phileb. p. 26 and Phaed. Ee 202; Bornem. Luc. p. 147; Bmin. p. 182. : 
Sepa pUE Jas. iv. 1d éav 0 Kiptos GeAnoyn kal Cyowpev (Ghoropev). Kal 


Tomowpev (ToLnTopev) TOUTO 7) éxeivo a learned controversy has been carried. . - 


oh between Fritzsche (Leipz. Literatur-Zeit. 1824. S. 2316 and n. krit. — 
Journ. V.S. 3 ff.) and Bornem. (n. krit. Journ. VI. 8. 130ff.). The former cn 
would make the conclusion begin at xal qoujoopev (adopting this as the 

preferable reading) ; the latter would make it begin at cat Cyowuev (re- 


969 taining also zoujowpev). Fritzsche renders the passage: ¢f the Lord will 
ith ed. and we live, we shall also do this or that ; Bortiem.: ¢f zt please the Lord, 


let us seek our support, let us do this or that. Every one must feel that 
there is something incongruous in the expression 2f God will, we will 
live ; and B. himself has perceived this, as he translates jo. we will use 
life! But this explanation appears forced, and not warranted by biblical 
usage. There is nothing remarkable in the occurrence of «at at the be- 
ginning of the apodosis (2 Cor. xi. 12). With regard to this, therefore, 
IT must agree with Fr. But he should not have asserted that rouoopey 
is far better attested than fjcopev. The critical authorities are nearly 
equal. Only from Cod. Meerm. (by Dermout) zoujoopey (but not Gycoper) 
has been adduced, [and Cod. Sin. has zoujoouey together with {jcoper]. 
Considering the ease with which a mistake in transcribing might occur, we 
should probably adopt as the most suitable reading: éav 6 xvpios GeAnoy 
kat Cyowpev, Kal Toowpev etc. (vs. 13). 


5. The Oprative is used in independent propositions when a 
wish is expressed; as, Acts viii. 20 76 apyvpiov cov avy col ein Els 
atrone.av, Rom. xv.5; Philem. 20 éyo cov dvaipnv, 1 Pet. i. 2; 
2 Pet..1..2; 1 Thess. in. 11 ts V.2oc 22 ess. 11 geet tie Cas 
ix: 10> 2 Tim. i. 7 the ere are to Re restored, as is ne Imperat. 
LaPérw in Acts i. 20). As tothe Sept. see some remarks in Thiersch 
p.201. Of: 1 Kings viii. 57; Ps. xl-3; Tob. vy. 14; x. 12 see 


Instead of the Optative, the Hebrew frequently employs a question to 
denote a wish; as, 2 Sam. xy. 4 ris pe karacrnoe Kpiryv utinam quis me 
constituat / ‘This construction, however, occurs also in Greek poets, Fr. 
Rom. II. 70. Yet it is on insufficient grounds that Rom. vii. 24 ris pe 
pvoerat etc. ha’ been taken as a wish expressed in the form of a question. 
A question expressive of perplexity and conscious helplessness is here 
peculiarly appropriate, and requires no perdPaats cis dAdo yévos. 





* 


: 4 


© -g Alp. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 987 
_._ *b, USE OF THESE THREE MOODS IN DEPENDENT PROPOSITIONS. 257 
’ x i Sed ae ” F 6th ed, 


» 1. The particles of design tva and érws (both which, however, 
. strictly signify quo modo, ut ;— respecting pu see below, § 56), 
- are quite naturally construed with the Subjunctive and Optative 
“(according to the distinction above pointed out between the two 
- » moods), as every design refers to the future, and, consequently, to 
‘something still to be carried into effect. The Indicative they can 
_. take—so long as the writer thinks correctly — only in the Future 
». .fense.! 
~~ <In the N. T. these particles are usually followed by 
a. The Subjunctive, and then a. not only after the Present, as 
Matt. vi. 2 crovodow ... Orws SoEacPActv 70 THY avOperrwv, 2'Tim. 
ii. 4 odSels otparevdpevos eumdr€éxerar Tals tod Blov mpaypateiass, 
iva TO oTpaToNoyjcavTs dpéon, 10 Tavta bropévw Sid T. ekreKTOvs, 270 
va Kai avtol cwrnpias TUY@ot (Mark iv. 21; Luke viii. 12; Rom. ia ot 
mee > 1.Jno. 1.3; Heb. ix. 15; 1 Cor. vii. 29; Gal. vi. 13; the 
Subjunctive here denoting — Hm. Vig. 850 — what was regarded 
as a consequence actually about to take place, what was in fact and 
immediately designed, consequently what is objectively possible), 
and after the Imperat. and the Fut., as 1 Tim. iv. 15 é tovtois 3803 
iat, iva cov 1) TpoxoTrn dhavepa 7, Matt. ii. 8 dmayyelraté pol, O7TwsS 
Kayo €Mav Tposkuyyow avT@, V. 16; xiv. 15; Acts vili. 19; xxiii. 
15; 1 Cor. iii. 18; 1 Jno. ii. 28; Jno. v. 20 peiGova tovtwr delEet 
avT@ épya, va vpeis Oavyagyte, Phil. i. 26, also after the Conjunct. 
adhort. or deliber., as in Rom. i. 8; Luke xx. 14; Jno. vi. 5, ete., 
— all in accordance with the preceding remarks, and quite regular 
(Hm. Vig. 850) ; — but also @. after the Preterite, when the latter 
denotes a really past time? (cf. Gayler, de partic. gr. sermon. negat. 
p. 176 sq.), and there occasionally can be perceived a reason for 
selecting this mood instead of the Optative (Hm. Vig. 791; Krii. 
166).° Accordingly, in the following passages the Subjunctive 
may denote an action still continuing either in itself or in its 
results, or one frequently recurring (Hm. Vig. 850 and ad Eurip. 
Hecub. p. 7; Heind. Plat. Protag. § 29; Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 108 ; 


1 See, in general, Franke in the Darmstidter Schulzeit. 1839. S. 1236 ff. ; Klotz, 
Devar. II. 615 sqq. 

2 For where a Perfect has the sense of a Present, fva or 8rws with the Subjunctive 
cannot be surprising, Jno. vi. 838; Luke xvi. 26; Acts ix. 17; 1 Jno. vy. 20. 

8 Many other distinctions have been laid down by Wez in the epist. crit. ad Gesenium 
(Lips. 1831. 4to.) p. 22sqq. The question arises, however, whether such nice distine- 
tions are consistent with the character of a living language. 


288 §41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 


Ast, Plat. lege. p. 93; Klotz, Devar. II. 618): 1 Tim. i. 16 7renOnv, 
ivf > > \ / > / ,’ \ \ n "4 

wa €v éuol mpoto évoeiEntar I. Xpiotos tiv Tacayv paxpoOvpiay, 
vs. 20 ods trapédmxa TO catava, va TaLdevOaat py Braocdnpely, 
Tit. 1.5 xatéduov oe ev Kpnyrn, wa ta dAelrovta éETtdtop0ocn, 
li. 14 Os edw@xev EavTov rept Hudv, Wa AUTPOONTAaL Huds, Rom. 
vi. 4 cuveradnuev avT@, va... Kal jpeis ev KawvoTnTe Cwhs mepe 
TatTiowwev, 1 Jno. lil. 5 ébavepoOn, wa Tas dpaptias nudav apn, 


258 vs. 8 éhavepwOn, va Ucn Ta Epya TO SiaBoXrov, Vv. 13 TadTa éypaa 
hed {utv, MaeidAre; cf. Lukei.4 (Plat. Crit.43b.; rep.9,472¢.; legge. 


2,653d.; Xen. Mem. 1,1,8; Aelian. 12,30). In other passages, 
e.g. Acts v. 26 nyayev avtovs ... a un ANLOacO acu», Acts ix. 21 
els ToUTO éANAVOEL, a... ayayn, the Subjunctive may denote an 
intended result of the occurrence of which the speaker entertained 
no doubt whatever ; cf. Mark viii. 6 édiSou Tots wabnrais avtod, iva 
mapa0aaot (that they might ... which they could not refuse to do), 
xii. 2; Acts xxv. 26 mporjyayor avtov éf’ tudr, dTws THs advaxkpicews 
yevouerns aya TL ypawo. (The Optative would express a design 
of uncertain result, Mtth. 1182, 1184.) Lastly, the construction 
in Matt. xix. 13 wposnvéyOn atte Ta tradia, iva Tas xelpas Er 07 


271 avrois, Mark x. 13 rposépepov ait@ radia, va dYyntar avTov is 


Tth ed. 


304 


perhaps to be explained by the fact that the Greeks in narration 
sometimes introduce the opinions of another in direct discourse, or 
at least as though he himself were still present, and consequently 
employ the same moods which he would have used (Heind. Plat. 
Protag. p. 502, 504; Poppo, Xen. Cyrop. p. 189 sq. and Thue. I. I. 
141 sq.) ; so here: that he may lay his hands upon them, instead 
of might lay (Optative). The reader is thus more vividly made 
as it were a beholder of the scene described (Klotz, as above, pp. 
618 sq. 682); cf. Jno. xviii. 28; Matt. xii. 14. As, however, the 
Optative never occurs in the N.T. in this (6.) very common 
construction, we are by no means warranted in ascribing to the 
sacred writers this nice distinction. They seem, rather, to have 
unconsciously avoided the Optative —a mood which becomes more 
and more rare in the later language, and in the popular speech 
perhaps never conformed to the rules of literary Attic—even where 
a more cultivated taste in such matters would have certainly given 
it the preference (e.g. Jno. iv. 8; vii. 82; Luke vi. 7; xix. 4; 
2 Cor. viii. 6; Heb. ii. 14; xi. 35; Phil. ii. 27, etc.). Even Plu- 
tarch, in the above construction, usually employs the Subjunctive,} 

1 Even in the earlier authors particles of design are more frequently construed with 
the Subjunctive after a Preterite than was formerly admitted. See Bremi, Lys. exc. I. 
p-. 435 sqq. ; 


§41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 989 


and in the Hellenistic language it is everywhere the predominant 
mood, as may be seen from every page of the Sept., Apocrypha, 
Pseudepigrapha, etc. (Thilo, Act. Thom. p. 47). 

b. The Indicative Future (after a Pres. and Perf. cf. Hm. Vig. 
851) ; as, Rev. xxii. 14 waxdpuor of rowdvtes Tas evtTodas adTod, iva 
éotat » ekovala avtay etc. (the Subjunctive immediately follows), 
iii. 9; vi.11; xiv. 13 (var.) ; Jno. xvii. 2 édwxas aito é£ouvciar ... 
wa... doce. artots (al. doon), 1 Pet. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xiii. 3 (var) ; 
Gal. ii. 4 (var.). Compare, further, the variants in Rev. viii. 3; 
ix. 20; xiii. 16; xiv. 13, (on the other hand, in the O. T. quota- 
tion Eph. vi. 8 the construction is continued in the oratio directa 
at éon, which accordingly must not be supposed to depend on iva. 
In the same way may be explained also the var. éavacrjce and 
kaQicecOe in Mark xii. 19 and Luke xxii. 80). The Fut. with 
dmws never occurs in the N. T. (for 67s ... &oeras Mark v. 23 
has little authority) ; but this is a construction not unfrequent in 
Greek authors, as Xen. A. 3, 1,18; Theophr. char. 22; Isocr. 
perm. 746; Dem. Mid. 398 b.; Soph. Philoct. 55; cf. Bornem. 
Xen. Anab. p. 498 ; Klotz as above, p. 683 sq.; Gayler de partic. 
negat. p. 211,321; Rost 647 f., and the Fut. then usually denotes 
a continuing state, while the Aor. Subjunct. is used of something 
quickly passing by. This construction with ta also appears cor- 
rect to Elmsley, Eurip. Bacch. p. 164; see, on the other hand, 
Hm. Soph. Oed. Col. 155, and de partic. ay p. 184; Klotz, Devar. 
II. 630 — (in all the passages referred to this head twa may be 
conveniently rendered by whi or where). Instances of this con- 
struction actually occur in the later writers (Cedren. II. 136), the 
Fathers (Epiph. I. 832 b.), and the Apocrypha (Evang. apocr. p. 
437; Thilo, apocr. 682); cf. Schaef. Demosth. IV. 273. In the 
N. T. this mood, according to the above passages, is pretty well 
established, though owing to Itacism the forms of the Ind. and of 
the Subj. might easily have been interchanged. 

c. Lastly, the use of va in connection with the Present Ind.,! of 
which two instances occur almost without var. —1 Cor. iv. 6 wa 
pdOnre ... wa pw dvttoda Ge, and Gal. iv. 17 &yrAovow ipas ... wa 
avtovs [nXodTe,—is very surprising; for the Pres. Ind. after a par- 
ticle of design seems illogical. Hence Fr. Matt. p. 836 sq. asserted 
that in both passages iva is not the Conjunction, but the Adverb 
ubv; and this opinion, after Fr. had exchanged it as respects the 


1 Valckenaer’s note on 1 Cor. confounds the Indic. Preterite, Future, and Present, 
and is consequently useless. 
37 


259 
6th ed, 


305 


272 
Tth ed. 


290 §41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE, 


first passage for another (Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 186 sqq.),! Mey. 
has taken up again: under which circumstances you (then) are 
notspuffed wp, —where (in which case) you are zealous in regard 
tothem. But, apart from the fact that in the whole Greek Bible wa 
never once occurs as an Adverb of place, the Pres. in both passages 
would be surprising, and also in the first passage od would rather 
be expected. Moreover in both passages, as Mey. himself admits, 
iva denoting design is far more in accordance with the Apostle’s 
meaning. I think, therefore, that this use of ta with the Ind. 
Pres. must be regarded as an impropriety of later Greek, — although 
the passage from Acta Ignat. ed. Ittig. p. 538 does not furnish satis- 
factory proof, as azroNodvtae might be taken for the Attic Fut. if 
necessary, and in Geopon. 10, 48,3; Himer. 15, 3 the Ind. may 
have arisen easily from the Subjunct. by a mistake of the scribe. 
On the other hand, in later works fa with the Ind. Pres. occurs 
so frequently as to preclude the supposition that every instance is a 
mistake of transcribers; see Malal. 10, p. 264 émitpéWras va travtes 
... Baoravovaw, 12, p. 300 émoince xédevow Wa ... xpnuatitover, 
Acta Pauli et Petri 7 mpodyeu, iva pia mods avroddvTat, 20 edidaka 
306 iva TH TY GdAHNovS TponyovvTat, Acta Pauli et Thecl. p. 45 wa 
260 ydpor pr) ylvovtat aAXAG OUTaS wévovow, Evang. apocr. p. 447.3 And 
fhe. this construction has further forced its way even into the N.T., 
273 good Codd. having in Jno. xvii. 8 wa ... yweoxovor. [CF. besides, _ 
the. Gal. vi. 12 Wa um Sudxovtat, Tit. ii. 4 a cwppovitovew, Rev. xiii. 17 — 
iva py tus SUvatat in Tischendorf’s text, and 2 Pet. i. 10 wa rroveio Pe 
in Lachmann’s.] Hither, therefore, Paul actually wrote thus (yet 
see Bengel on 1 Cor. iv.), or the forms were introduced in these 
passages by transcribers at an early date. It is worthy of remark, 
however the case may be, that in both instances the verb ends in ow. 


When the Optative (after a Pres.) follows wa, as in Eph. ili. 16 xayarw 
Ta yovaTd pov pos Tov Tarépa Tov Kuplov...tva Own iptv etc. (where, 
however, very good Codd. [Sin. too] have 60) i. 17, wa is not strictly a 
particle of design ; but the clause which it commences expresses the object 
of the wish and prayer (that he may give), and the Opt., as modus optandi, 
is selected on this very account; see Harless on Eph.i.17. Yet the Opt. 
is used even after iva or dws in order that, when it depends on a clause 


1 He adopts the emendation éva wy... puctotoba (for tva py... puctodee) ; but 
against this see Meyer. 

2 Modern Greek, e.g. in the Confess. Orthod., usually puts the Ind. Present after vd 
or did vd. 

8 Xen. Athen. 1, 11 Wa AauBdvwv wey mparre (which Sturz still adduces in his Lexie. 
Xenoph.) was long ago changed into AapBdvapev mpdrre. See Schneider in loc. 


§41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 904 


expressive of a.wish, Soph. Philoct. 325 and Aj. 1200; see Hm. on the 
latter passage, and Wex, epist. crit. p. 33. (In Eph. as above, it is un- 


necessary, with Lchm. and Fr. Rom. III. 230, to read dy, an Ionic form ; 


of the Subjunctive which is not sufficiently established in the N. 'T.) 


2. In HYPOTHETICAL sentences four kinds of construction occur 
(Hm. Vig. 834, 902) :1 

a. Pure condition: if thy friend comes, give him my regards (the 
case is put as real). Here the Indicative is used with ec; ‘* quae 
particula per se nihil significat praeter conditionem,”’ Klotz, Devar. 
455, cf. p. 487. 

b. Condition with assumption of objective possibility (where 
experience will decide whether or not it is real) : if thy friend come 
(i do not know whether he will come, but the result will show). 
Here éay (ei av see Hm. partic. av p. 95 sqq.) with the Subjunctive 
is used. 

c. Condition with assumption of subjective possibility, the condi- 
tion existing merely in thought: if thy friend should come (the 
case being conceivable and credible) J should be pleasedeto present 807 
my respects to him. Here e¢ with the Optative is used. 

d. Condition believed to be contrary to the fact: were there a 
- God, he would govern (but there is not). Had God existed from 
eternity, he would have prevented evil (but he has not existed). 
Here e¢ with the Indicative is used, — the Imperf. in the first case, 
the Aor. or (much more rarely) the Plup. in the second (Krii. 170) ; 
in the conclusion likewise one of these two tenses. Why a Preterite 964 
isused has been explained by Hm. Vig. 821,compare with this Stallb, 6th od 
Plat. Kuthyphr. p.51 sq. In general, see Klotz, Devar. p. 450 sqq. 


For éay we sometimes find, as in Jno. xii. 82; xvi. 33; Xx. 23; Luke O74 
iv. 7 (where, however, Tdf. has made no remark), in good Codd. (as B) th ed. 
av, respecting which cf. Hm. Vig. 812, 822. It is also by no means rare 
in Greek authors, even in Attic, though these prefer jv, which does not 
occur in the N. T. 


1 See also ad Soph. Antig. 706; ad Soph. Oed. C. 1445; ad Eur. Bacch. 200. 
Klossmann, de ratione et usu enuntiator. hypothet. linguae gr. Vratisl. 1830. Kiesling, 
2 Programm. de enunciatis hypothet. in lingua gr. et lat. Cizae, 1835. 45. 4to. Reck- 
nagel, zur Lehre yon den hypothetischen Sitzen mit Riicksicht auf die Grundformen 
derselben in der griech. Sprache. Niirnberg, 1843 ff. III. 4to. Besides, it can easily be 
conceived that, in many sentences, either ef or édv might be used with equal propriety, 
the selection depending on the writer. The later writers are not careful to discriminate 
between them. It may be worthy of remark, that Euclid almost always uses édv with 
the Subjunctive of a case in Mathematics (respecting which no future experience is 
needed to decide). 


292 §41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 


The diction of the N.T. will be found entirely in accordance 
with the preceding rules; e.g. 

a. a. Matt. xix. 10 e& ee éotw 7 aitia Tov avOpwrrov ... ov 
ouppéper yapjoat, 1 Cor. vi. 2; ix.17; Rom. vill. 25 ; Col. ii. 5 (Exe 
followed by Pres.) ; Matt. xix. x17 et Oedeus eiseNOety eis THY Conv, THPEL 
Tas évToAds, Vili. 81; xxvil. 40; Jno. vil. 4; 1 Cor. vii. 9 (Pres. fol- 
lowed by MAL 3 Rom. viii. 11 e¢ 70 me hie TOU éyeipavros "Inoobv 

. oikel év vpiv, Oo éyelpas ... Cworroujoes Kal Ta Ovnta copaTa, buon, 
Matt, xvil.4; Acts xix.389; Jno.v.47 (Pres. followed by Fut.) ; 1 Cor. 
xv. 16 €/ vexpol ovK éyelpovtat, ovde Xpiatos éyyyeptas if the dead do 
not rise (I assume the case), then is Christ also not risen, xiii. 1 ; 
2 Pet.ii. 20 (Rom. iv. 14) (Pres. followed by Perf) cf Demosth. ep. 3, 
p. 114 b.; Matt. xii. 26 ef 6 catavas Tov catavav ExBdrreL, ep EavTov 
éuepicOn, cf. vs. 28; Luke xi. 20 (Pres. followed by Aor.) ef. Orig. de 
die domin. p.3 Jani: e¢ 6€ tod épyou améyeis, ets THY ExKANo lay SE OVK 
elsépy, ovdEev EKEpOavas. B. Acts xvi. 15 et Kexpixaté we TLoTHV TO 
kupl@ eivat, eisedOovtes . Bee, (Perk followed by ipo : 
2 Cor. v. 16 ef Kat eyvoxapev KaTa capka Xpiotov, AANA VoV OVKETE 
yao Koper (Ror. followed by Pres.; cf. Demosth.c. Boeot. p. 639 a.) ; 
es xi. 12 e¢ Kexolunrat, SAAC eEOY (Perf. followed by Fut.), Rom. 
vid; 2 Cor. il. 5 et Tus aaa. OUK ewe AEAVTINKEV (Her, followed 
by Perf.) : ; vil. 14 ef te adT@ U7rép Kuav Kexavynpat, ov KaTnaYbVOnY 
(Perf. followed by Aor.). sy. Rom. xv. 27 e&¢ tots 7vevpatixots avTav 
exowavnaav Ta €Ovn, opeirovor etc., 1 Jno. iv. 11 (Aor. followed by 
Pres.) ; Jno. xviii. 23 ef kaxds €XdANTA, wapTYpnooV TeEpl TOD KaKoDv, 
Rom. xi. 17,18; Col. iii. 1; Philem. 18 (Aor. followed by Imperat.) ; 


Jno. xiii. 82 ef 6 Peds eS0EdcOn ev adTo, Kal 6 Oeds SoFdce avTov év 


2 éavT@, xv. 201 (Aor. followed by Fut.). 6. Matt. xxvi. 83 ef 


1 Jn this passage: ef éué edlwtay, kal buds Sidtovor* ei Toy Adyoy pov erhpnaay, kab Toy 
buetepoy tnphoovet, the translation ¢f they persecuted me, they will persecute you also, ete. is 
the only correct one. ‘The words appear to me to be simply a special application of 
the preceding thought, od« &or: SovAos peifwy Tod Kuplov avtod: your lot will be like 
mine; there is but a single alternative: persecution or acceptance. The words them- 
selves leave it for the moment undecided which of the two has befallen Jesus. What 
follows, however, shows how Jesus wished to be understood. Only it must not be 
overlooked that Jesus speaks of the conduct of the Jews in general, without reference to 
individual exceptions. According to a new exposition put forth by rector Lehmann 
in the Prog. lucubrationum sacrar. et profan. Pt. I. (Liibben, 1828. 4to.) a vis proportio- 
nalis is to be attributed to ef: quemadmodum me persecuti sunt, ita et vos persequentur ; 
quemadmodum (prout) meam doctrinam amplexi observarunt, ita et vestram, etc. But 
this import of the particle should have been established by decisive examples (in Jno. 
xiii. 14, 832 such force it obviously has not). ‘The writer seems to have confounded the 
simple comparative ut... ita (the parallel antithesis of two clauses standing in necessary 
correlation) with the proportional prout, according as. There is a difference between 


> 


§41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 998 


mavtTes oxavoadttcOnoovrar év aol, éym ovdétroTe cKavdaricOyncopat 275 


(Fut. followed by Fut. like Isocr. Archid. p. 280; Porphyr. abstin, ‘th ed 


1, 24); yet in Jas. ii. 11, where according to the received text 
the Fut. is followed by the Perf., probably the true reading would 
give Present tenses in the protasis. Such construction with the 
Fut. would approximate most nearly to that with éavy (Kru. 171); 
but 7 all shall be offended in thee is a more decided statement than 
if all should be offended. In the latter, it is still altogether uncer- 
tain whether they will be offended; in the former, this is assumed 
as a future fact (Christ has distinctly assured his disciples of this), 
cf. Hm. Vig. p. 900. 

b. “Edy if an objective possibility with the expectation of a decision 
is to be expressed, always therefore in reference to something future 
(Hm. Vig. 834) ; as, Jno. vii. 17 av tis Oédn TO O€Anpa adTod Trocety, 
yvocerat etc., Matt. xxvill. 14 €av dxovaOn TodTo él Tod iyepovos, 
nets Treicouev avtov. Hence the consequent clause usually contains 
a Fut. (Matt. v.13; Rom. ii. 26; 1 Cor. viii. 10; 1 Tim. ii. 15; 
or, what is equivalent, an Aor. with od uw Acts xiii. 41; Jno. 
vill. 51 f.) or an Imperat. (Jno. vii. 37; Matt. x. 13; xviii. 17; 
Rom. xii. 20; xiii. 4), more rarely a Pres., and then either in the 


_ sense of a Fut. (Xen. A. 3, 2, 20) or denoting something permanent, 


Matt. xviii. 18; 2 Cor. v. 1, or a general truth, Mark iii. 27; 1 Cor. 
ix. 16; Jno. viii. 16, 54; Acts xv. 1 (Diog. Laert. 6,44; 10,152). 


_ Perfects in the conclusion become equivalent in sense to Presents, 


Rom. ii. 25; vii. 2; Jno. xx. 23 (on Rom. xiv. 23 and Jno. xv. 6 
see § 40,4 b.5b.). The Aor. in the conclusion occurs in 1 Cor. 
Vii. 28 éav dé Kal ynuns, ody Huaptes thou hast not sinned, thou art 
not in this case a sinner. Cf. Mtth. 1203; Klotz, Devar. II. 451 sq. 
The Subjunctive depending on éav may be a Subj. Pres. or a Subj. 
Aor. The latter (on the whole the more usual) is, for the most 
part, rendered in Latin by the Future Perfect. 


‘That éév 1 Cor. vii. 11, as Riick. maintains, refers to an event (possibly) 
already past, is a mistake, cf. Mey. In 2 Cor. x. 8 also Mey. has corrected 
Riickert’s concessive acceptation of éav. 


c. Hi with the Optat. to denote subjective possibility (Hm. partic. 
av p. 97); and, a. When a condition is regarded as frequently re- 
curring (Klotz p. 492; Krii. 172), as 1 Pet. iii. 14 ed cai rac youre 


the two: In-a free translation the first may be put for e?, but the latter is not compre- 
hended in the import of ei or s: ; and every one must perceive that in the passage in 
question L. really takes ¢i in two senses, first simply as uf and then as prout. See also 
Liicke in loc. i 


309 


294 §4lb. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 


“~ 


dia Scxaocvvynv, waxapvor even if ye should suffer. Ildoyewv is desig- 
nated here not as something occurring in the future, but merely 
as something that may very probably occur, regarded without any 


276 reference to definite time (and in general as often as it may occur). 


Tth ed, 


263 
6th ed, 


Elsewhere only in ee clauses, but with the same reference ; 
as, 1 Cor. xv. 37 o7relpeis... yupvov KoKKov, ef TUYOL (if should 
so chance), citov (Dem. Aristocr. 436 c.; Lucian. navig. 44; amor. 42; 
Toxar. 4, see Jacob on the last passage, and Wetst. on 1 Cor. xv.), 
1 Pet. ili. 17 Kpetrrov ayaforrovodvtas, e¢ OéXoL TO OEAnpa Tov Oeod, 
waoyew, Cf. lsocr. Nicocl. p. 52. 8. After a Preterite when the 
condition is represented as the subjective purpose of the agent; as, 
Acts xxvii. 39 coop Twa KaTevoour EyovTa airyianov els Ov EBouAEVOVTO, 
et OvvatvTo, €&@oat TO Troiov, also Acts xxiv. 19 ods dec éml cod 
Tapeivat Kat KaTnyopelv, et TL Exovev pos pe Uf they had anything 
against me (in their minds), Krii. 171. In Acts xx. 16 the Optat. 
might, in the same way, be expected; yet even in Greek authors 
sometimes (and that not merely in standing phrases, as et duvatoy 
€ott above) in orat. obliq. the Ind. is used; as, Ael. 12, 40 éxnpvyOn 
T® otTpatoTrédy, el tis eyes VOwp €x ToD Xoaorov, iva d@ Bacirel 
mvciv. cf. Engelhardt, Plat. apol. p. 156. Further, see no. 5 below. 
(After éay in orat. obliq. nobody will expect the Opt. in the N. T. 
Acts ix. 2; Jno. ix. 22; xi. 57, Bttm. § 126,38; yet cine 
Vig. 822.) 
For examples to d. see § 42. 


310 The exceptions to these rules in the N.T. text are but very few, and 


occur for the most part only in particular Codd. They are the following: 

a) e is used with the Subjunctive’ in 1 Cor. ix. 11 ¢¢ jets tyav 7a 
capkxa Oepicwuev (according to good Codd.), xiv. 5 éxrds ei pa Sveppnvedy 
(al. Suepyvever) except (in case that) he interpret, Rey. xi. 0 var. (Sir. 
xxii. 24). The use of this mood after «i by Attic authors was long denied, 
but it is now admitted to occur even in prose; see Hm. Soph. Aj. 491 and 
de partic. dv p. 96; Poppo, Cyrop. p. 209 and Emend. ad Mtth. Gramm. 
(Frkf. on the Oder, 1832) p. 17; Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 463; Klotz, Devar. 
II. 500sqq. The distinction between «i with the Subjunctive and édy or 


1 Luke ix. 13 probably means : unless perhaps we are to buy some, and the mood does 
not depend on ei, —as elsewhere after the phrase &smep ef ty Mtth. 1205. Plat. Cratyl. 
425d. ef un tpa dh... Kal quets... dradkAay@mev would be similar; but others read 
GrarAayetwer. o 

2 Jn 1 Thess. v. 10 the text. rec. with all the better Codd. [Sin. also], has iva, e¢re 
ypnyopapev elte kabevdumev, Gua oly a’Tg (nowuer, where (after a Pret. in the principal 
clause) a more exact writer would have used the Opt. in both passages; cf. Xen. A. 2, 
1,14. Yet tva with the Subj. is here used according to b. 1, and the Subj. in the 
secondary clause is accommodated to this. 


§41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 995 


nv is thus defined by Hm. (de partic. av p. 97 and ad Soph. Oed. R. p. 52 sq. 
ef. Klotz as above 501) : ei puts the condition simply, but when used with 
the Subjunctive represents it as depending on the result; éav also does 
the latter, but less decisively, inasmuch as the av represents the condition 
as dependent on accidental circumstances, if anyhow or perhaps. This 
will suit both the passages above quoted: éxrds «i pay dveppyvevy nisi si 
interpretetur, on which the result will decide, refertur ad certam spem 
atque opinionem, futurum id esse (vel non esse). On the other hand, éav 
. would make the matter doubtful: wnless he perhaps, which may be the 
case, interpret. ‘This would be manifestly unsuitable, as the gift of inter- 
preting did exist, and was frequently exercised, vs. 26 f. In later prose 
this Subjunctive became more and more frequent (Jacobs, Achill. Tat. 
p- 681 and Athen. p. 146; Locella, Xen. Ephes. p. 185; Jacob, Lucian. 
Tox. p. 53; Jacobitz, Index p. 473; Schaef. Ind. ad Aesop. p. 131), par- 
ticularly in Byzantine authors (Index to Malalas and Theophanes), also 
in the Hellenistic writings (Thilo, Acta Thom. p. 23), and almost uniformly 
in the Canon. Apost. and the Basilic. (in the Sept. cf. Gen. xliii. 3, 4). 
In these writers a fixed distinction between «i with the Subj. and the same 
particle with the Ind., cannot be traced, (many doubt whether such a dis- 
tinction existed even in Attic, Rost S. 632 ; cf. Mtth. 1210 f.) ; consequently 
it is uncertain whether Paul had in view the nice discrimination specified 
above. 

b) éav is followed by the Indicative (Klotz p. 468), and not only — a. by 
the Ind. Present (Sept. Lev. i. 14; Acta apocr. 259) according to good 
Codd. in Rom. xiv. 8 éav dro6vjckopev, TO Kvpiw azobv., a general truth: 
cum morimur (without reference to the fact that time will decide whether 
we die or not), 1 Thess. iii. 8 (in Gal. i. 8 the Ind. has little authority),' or 
Future, Jno. viii. 36 éav 6 vids tuas eAevPepdce, Acts viii. 31 (where, how- 
ever, there is preponderant authority for the Subj.), Luke xi. 12 éay airjoea 
eov according to many uncial Codd. cum petet, not petierit, vi. 34; see Klotz 
pp- 470, 472 sq. The same (cf. Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 678, 687) occurs 
several times, as in Exod. viii. 21 (Lev. iv. 3), Malalas 5, p. 136; Cantacuz. 
1, 6, p. 30; 1, 54, p. 273 (Basilic. I. 175; Thilo, Acta Thom. p. 23 ; Schaef. 
ind. ad Aesop. p. 161), in which passages, to be sure, forms so slightly 
distinguished from each other hardly permit a positive decision ; — but also, 
f. by the Ind. Preterite, as in 1 Jno. v.15 éav oldapev without var. cf. 
Ephraemius 6298 (even when the Pret. is strictly Pret. in signification, as 
in Job xxii. 3; Theodoret. III. 267; Malalas 4, p.71 édv kaxeivn 7Bovrero, 
Nili ep. 8, 56 éav cides, Ephraem. 5251), see Jacobs, Act. Monae. I. 147 ; 
cf. Hase, Leon. Diac. p. 143 ; Schaef. ad Bastii ep. crit. p. 26; Poppo, Thue. 
IIT. I. 313 and III. II. 1722 


1 In all these passages the form might easily have arisen from a mistake in transcrib- 
ing (fr. Rom. III. 179) ; Klotz p. 471 sqq. has, however, adduced examples from good 
writers to which this would not apply. 

2 Editors of early writers have usually corrected such passages (see also Bhdy. Dionys. 


277 
Tth ed, 
264 
Gth ed. 


311 


278 
Tth ed. 


265 
Oth ed. 


312 


296 §41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 


Sometimes éay and ¢e are connected in two parallel clauses; as, Acts 
v. 38, 89 éav 9 && avOpmrwv 4% Bovdy adrn i} 76 épyov Totro, katahubjcerae 
(should it be from men, and this the result will show), «i d&€ €« Geod éorw, 
od dvvacbe katadtoa aird (if it ts of God, —a case I assume), Luke xiii. 9 
Kav pev Toujon KapTov:... ei O€ pryye... éxkowets si fructus tulerit ;... sin 
minus (si non fert) etc. (Plat. rep. 7, 540d.), Gal. i. 8f.; see Hm. Vig. 834; 
Jacob, Lucian. Tox. p. 148; Weber, Dem. p. 473. Cf. Her. 3, 86; Xen. 
C.4,1,15; Plat. Phaed. 93 b.; Isocr. Evag. p. 462 ; Lucian. dial. m. 6, 3; 
Dio Chr. 69, 621. In most cases of this nature ei or éay repeated might 
be used with equal propriety, though the choice of the one conjunction or 
the other would obviously proceed from a different conception of the rela- 
tion; see Fr. Conject. I. 25. In two mutually subordinate clauses ei and 
édv are distinguished from each other in Jno. xiii. 17 ei tatra oidare, 
paxaplot éote, €dv wowjre avtd, wf ye know...%n case ye do, and 1 Cor. 
vii. 86 ef tis doxnpovety ert tiv TapHévov adrod vopiler, eav 7 imépaxpos etc. 
Rev. ii. 5; cf. Krii. 172. 

3. Particles of time (Krii. 175) which 1) in narration denote a 
definite past event (when, while, etc.) are naturally construed 
with the Indicative Pret. or historical Pres.; as ére Matt. vii. 28; 
ix.25; Mark xi.1; xiv.12; Lukeiv. 25; 1 Cor. xiii. 11; os Matt: 
xxvill. 9; Luke i. 28; vii.12; Jno. iv. 40; Acts xvi. 4, etc., omrore 
Luke vi. 3, #viéka 2 Cor. iii. 15 (Lehm. and Tdf.) ef. Klotz p. 613. 
So likewise éws and éws ot! Matt. 1. 25; ii. 9; Jno. ix. 18; Acts 
xxi. 26, etc.; Mtth.1197f. Those which 2) denote a future event 
(when, as soon as, until) likewise govern, a) if they refer to a dis- 
tinctly conceived event, the Indicative (Fut.); as, Jno. iv. 21 
épxetat wpa, bre... MposKuynaete TO Tatpl, Luke xvii. 22 
éXevoovTat Hepat, Ore eriOupyoere, xiili.85; Jno.v.25; xvi.25; see 
Hm. Vig. 915. After éws the Pres. Ind. is in a few instances used 
for the Fut. (§ 40, 2); as, Jno. xxi. 22; 1 Tim. iv. 18 éws epyopas 
(like éws éraveow Plut. Lycurg. c. 29).2_ The Pres. Ind. after ore 


p: 851), sometimes without MS. authority (Arist. anim. 7, 4 p. 210 Sylb.). On the 
other hand, we find in Dinarch. c. Philocl. 2, even in Bekker’s edition, éay ... efAnge, 
which, according to Klotz’s remarks, is not to be altered. 

1 This phrase (equivalent to our until) is not peculiar to later prose, except when 
used without &. Even in Her. 2, 143 we find €ws ob améSetav, and in Xen. A. 1, 7, 6; 
5, 4, 16 etc., wéxpis ov, so frequently in Plutarch., more fully wéxps todrov, ews ob 
Palaeph. 4, 2. 

2 In the sense of as long as, €ws denoting something actual is used as naturally with 
the Ind. Jno. ix. 4 (xii. 35 var.; Plat. Phaed. 89 c.; Xen. C.1,6,9; 7, 2,22; Plutarch. 
educ. 9, 27 etc. ; Klotz, Devar. II. 565). The same mood is used after the Imperat. in 
Matt. v. 25 Yo0t edvoay TO dyTiSikw cov TaxV, Ews BTov ei ev TH 65 per’ advtod, where the 
Subjunctive might have been expected, as a merely possible case is indicated. This 
statement, however, contains a general truth, in which the case in question is represented 


§41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 297 


differs from this. That is employed in general truths; as, Jno. 
ix. 4 epyeras vwvE dre (i.e. 7) ovdeis SvvaTar epyatecPar, Heb. 
ix. 17 érel pote ioyver (diabynKn), dre GH 0 Staéwevos, see Hm. 
as above, 915. b) If, however, the future event is only Cobjec- 
tively) possible, though viewed as under certain circumstances sure 279 
to take place, the Subjunctive with a particle of time compounded ‘et 
with dy (dtTav, érav, nvixa av) is usually employed, see § 42. ‘The 
same construction is used, when the particle of time indicates a 
duration or a future repetition (é6Tav, ocaxis adv), or a point of time 
till which something is to continue (éws av) Mtth. 1199. In the 
latter case, however, the Subjunctive alone with éws, éws ob, dypu, 
mpiv, etc. often occurs, particularly in the later authors; as, Mark 266 
xiv. 32 xabicate &Se, ws mposevEopar until I shall have prayed, 
2 Pet. i. 19 Karas sroveire mposéyovtes ... Ews ov tuépa Svavyacn, 
Luke xiii. 8 ddes adtyv Kal TodTO TO ETOS, Ews OTOU TKAaw TeEpi avTHY, 
xii. 50; xv.4; xxi. 24; xxii. 16; xxiv. 49 (Heb. x.13); 2 Thess. 
ii. 7; 1 Cor. xi. 26; xv. 25; Gal. iii. 19; Eph. iv. 13; Luke ii. 26 
pn idetv Odvatov, mpw 7) dn tov Xpiotov. See Plutarch. Cat. min. 
59 dypis ob THY ExxaTnY TUYnV Tis. TaTpldos eEEhéyEwmev, Caes. T 
pexpls op KatatroXeunOy Kartirivas, Plato, Eryx 392 ¢.; Aesch. dial. 
2,1; Lob. Phryn. p. 14 sq.; Stallb. Plat. Phileb. p. 61 sq.; Held, 318 
Plutarch. Timol. p. 869 sq. ; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 568. The lucid 
distinction which Hm. lays down, part. adv p. 109 sq. (restricting it, 
however, immediately, p. 111) cf. Klotz, Devar. 568, however easily 
it finds support in the preceding passages, would vanish again as 
respects the N. T. on a comparison of the passages with éws dv 
§ 42,5. In Rey. xx. 5 ot dowrol... ok Efnoav, éws TerecOH Ta 
xidua érn does not mean, till they were completed (narratively), 
but is a concise expression: they remained (and remain) dead, till 
the thousand years shall be completed. 3) The Opt. (without av) 
occurs but once in the N. 'T. after a particle of time in orat. obliq. 
Acts xxv. 16 ov« éotiv E80 ‘Pwpalois yapifer@ai twa avOpwrov eis 
aTMNELAV, T PLY 1) O KaTHYOpOUpmEVoS KATA TpdswTrov ~yot TOS KATN- 
yopous, Témov Te amoNoylias AdBou etc. See Klotz p. 727. In 
other places, where. this mood might be expected, we find the 
Subjunctive, as in Matt. xiv. 22; Acts xxiii. 12, 14,21; Mark ix. 9; 
Luke ii. 26; Rev. vi. 11; this may be in part accounted for by a 
blending of the orat. recta and obliqua, see below, no. 5. With 


as real. On the other hand, in Luke xvii. 8 diaxdvet por, Ews pdyw Kad iw (&v is omitted 
in the better Codd. (Sin. also]) the Subjunctive is employed in reference to an uncertain 
limit in the future. 

30 


298 §41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 


Matt. as above, cf. Thuc. 1,187 tiv dodddevav eivat pndéva éxBhvat 
Ex THS vEews, mexpl TAOS yévnrt at, Alciphr. 8, 64; Poppo, Thue. 
I. I. 142; Kru. 177. Once indeed in such a case, Mark vi. 45 
(which Fr. has left wholly unnoticed), the Indicative even is fully 
established, which is to be accounted for in a similar way ; see Mey. 
In Luke xiii. 85 €ws H&e, Ore eianre the Subjunctive is joined also 
with ore, a construction that could hardly be vindicated by Attic prose 
(Klotz 688) ; but (de eventu) it is not incorrect: quando dixeritis. The 
Ind. Fut. would be more suitable in the mouth of Christ, and would cor- 
respond better to 7&e (Diod.S. Exc. Vat. 103, 31 Lips.). Besides, compare 


as to ore with the Subjunctive, Jacobs, Anthol. pal. III. 100 and in Act. 
Monae. I. II. 147. 


4, INTERROGATIVES in indirect questions are construed, 
280 a. With the Jndicative, when the question refers to a matter of 
ihel. fret i.e. to the existence of something (1s 1? wrt not?) or to the 
condition of something existing (how ? where ? wherefore? etc.), 
whether the principal clause contain a Pres. or a Pret. (Plut. Arist. 
7; Xen. A. 2,6,4; Plat. Phil. 22 a.; rep. 1, 330 e.; conv. 194. ; 
Diog. L. 2, 69; Klotz, Devar. 508); as, Mark xv. 44 ésrnpatncev 
avtov, ei mada aTéOavev, Matt. xxvi. 63; Jno. i. 40 eidov rod pévet, 
267 Mark v. 16 &imyjcavto adtois, Tas éyéveTo TA Satpovibopeve, Acts 
bth eh <x. 18 erictacbe ... THs pe tuov éyevounv (he had actually 
814 been with them), 1 Thess. i. 9 drayyéAXovcw, drrolav elsodov Ea y0- 
fev Tpos tpas, Jno. ix. 21 7as viv BE et, ovK oldamev, vs. 15; x. 6 
ovK éyvwcay Tiva Hv & éhare what it was (meant), ili. 8; vil. 27 ; 
xx.13; Acts v. 85) xii. 18; xv! 36; xix..2; Luke xxiiv6g Gor: 
iv. 6 Eph. i..18 3 1 Cor. 1.16; iii. 10 3°2 Thess. ii1.c7); Tims, 
also Jno. ix. 25 (where aduaptewnor eivas had been asserted) : whether 
he 2s a sinner or not. In such instances the Latin language, as is 
well known, taking a different view of the case employs the Subjunc- 
tive. The tense of the direct question is introduced into an indirect 
question in Acts x. 18 éwuvOaveto, ef Siwy évOdde EeviFerar, Heb. 
xi. 8; cf. Plat. apol. 21 b. jaédpovr, ri wrote NEyet, Plutarch. Opp. IL. 
208 b., 220 f., 221 c., 230 f., 231 c..ete:s: Polyb. 1; 60,65 4) Gee 
Diog. L. 6,42; 2,69, and, in general, very frequently, not to say uni- 
formly, in Greek authors. : 
b. With the Subjyunctwe, when something objectively possible, 
something which may or should take place, is to be expressed (Klotz, 


1 In Greek the Objective is expressed in the Objective mood ; in Latin, the Objective, 
made to depend on the act of asking and inquiring, is for that reason put as a mere 
conception : interrogo quid sit. Cf. Jen. L. Z. 1812. no. 194. j 


§41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 9299 


Devar. 511) ; as, Matt. viii. 20 6 vids tod avOpw7rov ovk Exel, Tod Ti 
keharyv crivy where he may lay, ubi reponat, Kri. 166; Rom. 
Vili. 26 td mposevEwpOa Kalo dei, ovK oidapev what we should 
pray for (as to the var. zrposevfoueba, see Fr. in loc.), Matt. vi. 25 ; 
eee: Mark xiii. 11; Luke xii. 5,11; Heb. viii. 3; 1 Pet. v. 8; 
cf. Stallb. Plat. Phaed. p. 202 and rep. I. 72; Xen. Mem. 2, 1, 21; 
Cyr. 1, 4,18; Anab. 1, 7,7; 2,4,19; Isocr. paneg. c. 41; Plat. 
rep. 8368 b. Likewise after a Pret., as in Acts iv. 21 pndev evpi- 
CKOVTES TO TAS KONaAGwYTat avTovs, Luke xix. 48; xxii. 2; Mark 
ii. 6 cupBovrALov errolouy . . . O7wS avTOV aTTONET wt, Xi. 18; xiv. 1, 
40., where the Opt. might be used (Lucian. dial. d. 17,1; 25,1 
etc., Kiihner IJ. 103; Hm. Vig. 741), but the Subjunctive is used 
inasmuch as there is a reference to the direct question they put to 
each other: 7@s avtov amroNéowpev (deliberative Subjunct. cf. Thue. 
2, 02.). 

In such cases the Fut. Ind. also may be used for the Subjunctive (owing 
to the affinity between these two forms’) ; as, Phil. i. 22 ré aipyoopar 281 
(without var.), od yvwpi{w what I am to choose, Mark ix. 6, see Demosth. ‘th ed. 
funebr. 152 b.; Thuc. 7, 14; Herod. 5, 4, 16; Jacob, Lucian. Toxar. 151. 815 
On the other hand, there is the testimony of the most distinguished Codd. 
[ Sin. also | for dpécy in 1 Cor. vii. 82, 33, 34. But in Mark iii. 2 zaperjpouv 
airov, ci... Oepareioes means: whether he will (would) heal, and the Fut. 
is necessary, as in 1 Cor. vii. 16. See Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 249. 





c. The Optative is used to denote subjective possibility — a mere 
conception ; hence in narration after a Pret. if a person is introduced 
by a question referring simply to the idea of him ; as, Luke xxii. 23 
npEavto oventeiv Tpos Eavtovs, TO Tis dpa ein €& avTav who he might 268 
be i.e. whom they should regard as, i. 29 (2 Mace. iii. 37) ; iii. 15; sthed 
vill. 9; xv. 26; xvill. 86; Acts xvii. 11 ed€favto Tov Adybv... 
avaxpiwovTes Tas Ypadhas, et Exot TadTa ovtws whether these things 
were so, xxv. 20; cf. Her. 1, 46; 3, 28, 64; Xen. A. 1, 8,15; 2, 
1,15; C.1,4, 6, and Hm. as above, 742. See, further, Acts xvii. 27 
emoince ... Tav EOvos ... Entetv Tov Oeov, ei apaye Wnradijoevav if 
haply they might feel after etc., Acts xxvii. 12 (Thue. ii. 77) see 
Mtth. 1213; Klotz p. 509. 


Acts xxi. 33 éxuvOdvero, ris dv etn wal ro éore meroukds throws 
especial light on the distinctive import of the moods in dependent clauses 
after ris etc. That the prisoner had committed some offence was certain, 
or was assumed by the centurion as certain, and ré éort w. inquires after the 


1 Hm. Eurip. Io p. 155: ubique in conjunctivo inest futuri notatio, cujus ille camque 
‘temporis sit. Cf. Bmln. 106f. 


300 §41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 


matter of fact of the erounxévor ; but who the prisoner might be was a point 
on which the centurion wished then for the first time to form an idea. 
Cf. Xen. Eph. 5, 12 éreBavpdxea, tives te Hoav Kat tTé BovAotyTo, Stallb. 
Plat. Euthyphr. p. 107 ; Jacob, Lucian. Tox.139. See also Dio Chr. 35, 
429; 41, 499; Heliod. 1, 25, 46; 2, 15, 81. 

In the phrase ovdels €orw os or tis €orw os (of similar import), even fel- 
lowed by the Fut., the Indicative is always and properly used; as, Matt. x. 26 
ovdev eote Kexadvppevov, 0 otk amoxadupOycerar there is nothing covered, 
which shall not be revealed (though the Romans would have said: nihil est, 
quod non manifestum futurum sit), xxiv. 2; 1 Cor. vi.5; Phil. ii. 20; Acts 
xix. 35; Heb. xii. 7 (Judith vill. 28; Tob. xiii. 2); cf. Vig. p. 196sq.; 
Bhdy. 390. The Subjunctive occurs only once in connection with the 
Ind.: Luke viii. 17 ob yap éore kpurrov, 6 od havepov yevncerat, ovde amdkpupor, 
0 od yrworOycerat Kat cis havepov EAOy (BL [Sin.] have 6 od pi yywoO7 Kal 
cis havepov <\Pn). See below, § 42,3b. The passage adduced by Lob. 
Phryn. 736 from Joseph. Antt. 13, 6 is also not fully established. As to 
the import of this Subjunctive, see below, § 42, 3b, p. 307. 

In Jno. vii. 85 the Fut. Indic. is quite according to rule: od otros péAAe 
ropever Oar (A€ywr), OTe TLEts OK EbpyTopev aitov ; whither will this man go, 
that (according to his statement, vs. 34) we shall not find him? In ovx 

816 cipro. the words uttered by him (vs. 84) are repeated in the tense and 
mood of direct discourse. Acts vil. 40 (a quotation from the O. T.) is also 

989 quite correct: moto itv Ocovs, ol tpoTopevoovTar npav gui antecedant 

Th ed, (see Mtth. 1145), Phil. 11. 20; 1 Cor. ii. 16; cf. Demosth. Polycl. 711 b.; 
Plat. Gorg. 518 etc. ; Xen. Hell. 2, 38,2; Aristot. Nic. 9, 11. 

The use of the Indic. Fut. after «i or ei dpa, also, is worthy of notice in 
cases such as Acts vili. 22 denO@yre Tod Geod, «i dpa adeOyjoerai cor 4 érivow 
Ths Kapdias cov, Mark xi. 13 7AGer, ci dpa ebpyoer te ev ait he came, if haply - 
he might find ete. (in Latin, si forte ... ¢nveniret). The words are here 
expressed in the mood which the speaker himself would employ: I will 
go and see, whether I shall find, ete. The Ind. Fut. after eizws Rom. i. 10 
is of a different description, but equally well established. 

In Eph. v. 15 if the sense had been: take heed how you may (can) walk 

969 exactly the Subjunctive or Fut. Indicative must have been employed. 

ith ed. With the Indic. Pres. the question refers to the manner in which the 
dxpiBds mrepuraretv, as a Christian duty, is carried into effect; see how you 
realize the dxpy8. wepizar., how you set about living accurately. Cf. 
Fritzsch. Opuse. p. 209. 1 Cor. ili. 10 éxacros BAerérw ras eroixodopet is 
not exactly similar to the preceding, inasmuch as in this passage after 
dAXos érotxodopet there can be no doubt that reference is made to a matter 
of fact. 


5. The Optative in the oratio obliqua (Hm. Soph. Trach. p. 18) 
but rarely appears: Acts xxv. 16 mpos ods amexplOny bre ov éotw 
00s ‘Pwpaiows yapifecGal twa avOpwrov, mpiv i) 6 Katnyopovpevos 


§41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 301 


Kati mposwmov Exot TOS KaTHYOpgus TOTOV TE aToNoyias NaBot 
etc. ; and indeed the instances in which the words of another are 
indirectly quoted are rare in the N.T. When such instances 
occur the Indicative is commonly used; either because the inter- 
mediate clause where the Optative might have been expected is 
uttered in the person of the narrator (Bmln. 270) Luke viil. 47 ; 
Matt. xviii. 25; Mark ix. 9; Acts xxii. 24, or because by a ming- 
ling of two constructions the mood of the oratio recta is used for 
that of the oratio obliqua (which was perhaps in special accordance 
with colloquial, usage) ; as, Acts xv. 5 éfavéotnoday tTwes TOV... 
Papicaiwv, AéyovTes OTe Set weprtéwvew etc., Luke xvii. 9 eizre Kal 
Mpos Twas Tovs TreTroWoTas ef EavTois, OTL etot Sixavoe (on the con- 
trary, Mtth. 1222), Acts xii. 18 *y tdpayos ovK oryos... TL dpa 
o ILétpos éyéverto, ix. 27; xxiii. 20; 1 Cor. i. 15. Something 
similar occurs in Attic authors (though for the most part in 
lengthened sentences) Isocr. Trapez. 860; Demosth. Phorm. 586 
and Polycl. 710, 711; Lys. caed. Eratosth. 19; Xen. Cyrop. 2, 4, 
3; 38,2, 27; 4,5, 36; Hell. 2, 1, 24, and later writers Aelian. 11, 
9; Diog. L. 2, 32,74; Pausan. 6,9, 1. See Heindorf, Plat. Soph. 
p- 459 sq.; Mtth. 1224 sq.; Bhdy. 389. 


Note 1. The consecutive particle wsve is usually construed with the 
Infin. (as the simple Infin. may be employed in a consecutive sense), cf. 
§ 44. Yet the Finite verb is used, not only where dsre begins a new 
clause (in the sense of guare, itaque),— sometimes in the Indic. as in 
Matt. xii. 12; xix. 6; xxiii. 31; Rom. vii. 4; xiii. 2; 1 Cor. xi. 27; xiv. 22; 
2°Cor.iv.12; v.16; Gal. iii. 9; iv.7; 1 Thess. iv.18; 1 Pet. iv. 19, ete. 
(Gayler de partic. negat. p. 218sq.), and sometimes in the Conjunct. 
exhort. as in 1 Cor. v. 8 and the Imperat. as in 1 Cor. iii. 21; x.12; Phil. 
ii. 12; iv. 1; Jas. i. 19, ete. (Soph. El. 1163; Plutarch. Them. c. 27), — 
but ‘also where the clause with oste forms a necessary complement to the 
preceding clause, as in Jno. ili. 16 ovtws tyarnoev 6 Oeds Tov KOopoy, OsTE ..- 
cowxev, Gal. ii. 13 (but in Acts xiv. 1 ovrws Ssre with Inf.). This construction 
is very common also in Greek authors. Thus dsve occurs with a Finite 
verb after ovrw in Isocr. Areopag. p. 343, 354; de big. p. 838; Aegin. 
p- 922; Evag.476; Lysias pro Mantith. 2, and pro mil.17; Xen. C. 1, 4, 
15; 2, 2,10; Diog. L. 9, 68, after eis tocotrov in Isocr. de big. p. 836 ; 
Soph. Oed. R. 533; see Gayler as above, 221 sq. Cf. Schaef. Plutarch. V. 
248. The distinction at least in the better authors seems to be this: sve 
with the Indic. presents the facts in succession purely externally as ante- 
cedent and consequent; while with the Inf. it brings them into closer 
connection as issuing one from the other, Klotz 772; cf. Bmln. 88. 

Note 2. "Odedov (dpedov) is in the N.T. (as in later Greek) treated 


317 


983 
Tth ed, 


270 
6th ed. 


318 


3802 §42. THE CONJUNCTION "AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 


quite as a particle, and construed with the Indic.; a. Of the Preterite, 
1 Cor.iv.8 dfedXov €Bactrctaoare would that ye did reign, Imperf. 2 Cor. 
xi. 1 ddedov avelyec OE prov puxpov would that ye had patience with me for a 
little; b. Of the Fut. Gal. v.12. With this construction of éqeAov ef. 
Arrian. Epictet. 2,18, 15 dpeddv tus wera ravtys éxorn7Oy, Gregor. orat. 
28 (Exod. xvi. 3; Num. xiv. 2; xx. 3). When odedov had once come to 
be regarded as a particle, the former construction was just as correct in 
thought as the Imperf. or Aor. Indie. after «i#e, Mtth. 1161; Klotz, Devar. 
316 (aor. de re, de qua, quom non facta sit olim, nune nobis gratum fore 
significamus, si facta esset illo tempore) ; the Fut., however, took the place 
of the Opt. In Rey. iii. 15 some Codd. have dgeAov Yuxpds eins, others js. 
Both readings make equally good sense. 


§ 42. THE CONJUNCTION “AN WITH THE THREE MOODS} 


1. The particle av, which in general imparts to the expression 
the impress of being dependent on circumstances (a fortuita qua- 
dam conditione), and accordingly conditional and fortuitous (Hm. 


284 Vig. 903, 820; de partic. av p. 10 sq.), forte, si res ita ferat, perhaps, 


Tth ed, 


21. 
bth ed. 


perchance (should the case occur),? is used with one of the three 
moods either in an independent or a dependent clause. Yet its 
use in the N. T. (as in general in later Greek) is far less copious 
and diversified than in classic (Attic) writers ;° in particular, it is 
never found joined with a participle. In independent and simple 
clauses av occurs in the N. T., 


1 Compare, as to the use of this particle, the following monographs: Poppo, Pr. de 
usu partic. & apud Graecos. Fref. ad Viad. 1816. 4to. (also in Seebode’s Miscell. crit. 
I. 1), fetsig de vi et usu & particulae in his edit. of Aristoph. nub. (Lips. 1820. 8yo.) 
p. 97-140. I have mainly followed the theory of Hermann, from which the views of 
Buttmann, and still more those of Thiersch (Acta Monae. II. 101 sqq.), partly differ. 
It is most fully expounded in libb. 4 de particula &, which are printed in the London 
edition of Stephanus’s Thesaurus, as well as in Hermann’s Opuscul. Tom. IV., and 
which were also published separately in Leipsic, 1831. 8vo. With Hermann on all the 
main points Klotz Devar. II. 99 agrees, while Hartung Partik. II. 218 ff. widely dissents 
from both. The opinion hitherto accepted respecting the import of ay has been com- 
pletely reversed by B. Matthiae in his Lexic. Eurip. I. 189 sqq. ; he pronounces it to be 
rather a corroborating and affirming particle, and gives us to understand that his view 
is a divina et qua nihil unquam verius exstitit descriptio. Further, compare Baumlein 
on the Greek Moods (see above p. 281) and Moller in Schneidewin, Philolog. VI. 719 ff. 

2 Perhaps the halt of the South of Germany may also be compared with it. 

8 In the Sept. & does not occur more seldom than in the N. T. (Bretschneid. Lexie. 
p- 22 says: multo rarius). It occurs in hypothetical clauses, where it is required. It 
is also sometimes construed with the Optative, as in Gen. xix. 8; xxxiii. 10; xliv. 8, 
and with the Participle in 2 Macc. 1.11; 3 Macc.iv.1. It occurs on almost every pace. 
As to &y in the Apocrypha, see Wadl, Clay. apocr. p. 34 sqq. 


pM 


* 


§ 42, THE CONJUNCTION “AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 303 


a. With the Aorist Indic. to indicate that something on a certain 
condition would have taken place (in which use a hypothetical 
proposition is implied in the context) Mtth. 1154 f.; Rost 606 f. ; 
as, Luke xix. 23 dia ti ove E&wxas Td dpyvpiov pou emt tiv TpaTelar ; 

Kal eyo éMav aly TOK dv érpata avdto, I should (had the didovac 
TO apyup. émt THv Tpdm. occurred) have collected it with interest. 
Here the omitted protasis may be easily gathered from the ques- 
tion dia ti... tpdwefav. The same remark applies to the parallel 
passage in Matt. xxv. 27 ébe ce Barety Td apyvpiov jou Tois TpaTre- 
Citas, Kal éAOwy éy@ exomicaduny av TO €uov ovy ToKw, and Heb. x. 2 
émrel ovk adv éTavcavto Tpospepomevar, Where we may supply from 
vs. 1: if these sacrifices had perfected forever the offerers, — com- 
pletely cleansed them from sin (Xen. A. 4, 2,10; Thue. 1, 11; 319 
Plat. symp. 175d.; rep. 8, 554 b.; Aristot. rhet. 2, 2,11; Diog. 
L.2,75). Cf. Sept. Gen. xxvi. 10; Job iii. 10, 138 (Pluperf. 2 Sam. 
xviii. 11). 

b. With the Optative, when subjective possibility is attached to 
condition (opinio de eo, quod ex aliqua conditione pendet, Hm. 
partic. dv 164 sqq.),! “Acts xxvi. 29 ev&aiunv dv 7d Ged (I could 
willingly pray God, i.e. were I to be guided by what I feel — were 
I to follow the wish of my heart). This phrase (corresponding to 
- Bovroiunyv av) occurs in Dio OC. 86, 10, and evEair av tis in Xen. 
hipparch. 8, 6, os ay éym ev&aiunv Diog. L. 2,76. We find a 
similar phrase, a&@caip’ dv, in Liban. oratt. p. 200 b. In direct 
questions: Acts ii. 12 Néyovtes wri Av Oédot TodTO eivar ; what may 
this perhaps mean? (1 assume it must mean something), xvii. 18 285 
rl dv OérXoe 6 orrEepporoyos odTos Aéyerv ; (it being assumed that 
his words have some meaning or other), Luke vi.11 ; Gen. xxiii.15; 
Deut. xxvili. 67 ; Job xix. 23; xxv.4; xxix.2; xxxi.31; Ecclus. 
xxv. 8. Of. Od. 21, 259; Xen. C.1, 4,12; Diog. L. 2,5; Krii. 163. 


Acts viii. 31 is equivalent to a hypothetical construction: ws dv duvaiuny, 
edy py tus OOnyyjoy pe; for without a question it would run: ov« dv Suvaiuny, 
ef. Xen. Apol. 6 jv aicOévupa xelpwv yryvopevos ... 7Os dv... eyo Ge dy 
ndoews Brorevount ; 

We find ay (according to most Codd. [Sin. included]) without a mood 
(Hm. partic. dv, p. 187) in 1 Cor. vii. 5 pH daroorepetre &dArAOvs, ed par) TH 
av €k cupddvov, except perhaps in case of mutual consent. 


2. After conditional clauses with ed we find dy in the apodosis 


1 Klotz p. 104: Adjecta ad optativum ista particula hoc dicitur : nos rem ita animo 


cogitare, si quando fiat, i.e. rem, si fiat, ita fieri oportere ex cogitatione quidem nostra, 
Cf. Mdv. 148 f. 


804 §42. THE CONJUNCTION “AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 


with the Indicative to denote hypothetical reality (Rost 627 ; 
Mtth. 1147 f.), and then, 
a. With the Imperf. (usually), when I would do it is to be 
expressed, a. After an Imperf. in the antecedent clause, as in Luke 
Vil. 39 obros ef Hv mpodyrns, Eyivwoker av etc. were he a prophet, 
272 he would know, xvii. 6; Matt. xxiii. 30 Fr.) ; Jno. v. 46; (viii. 19) ; 
bhel viii, 42; ix. 41; xv. 19; xviii. 36; Gal. i. 10; Heb. viii. 4, 7; 
1 Cor. xi. 81; Acts xviii. 14; cf. 2 Macc. iv. 47; Valckenaer ad 
Lue. xvii. 6. 8. After an Aor. in the antecedent clause, as in Heb. 
iv. 8 e¢ yap avtovs ‘Incods xatémavaev, ovK dy Trepl addAns edAarEL Uf 
J. had given them rest, he would not speak etc. (in the words pre- 
820 viously quoted vs. 5) cf. in vs. 7 the Pres. épifer; Gal. iii. 21 (ch 4 
Jer. xxiii. 22; Baruch iii. 18). 
b. With the Aor., when Z would have done it is to be expressed 
(Hm. Vig. 813), Matt. xi. 21 ef éyévovto ... madav av petevoncav * 
if ... had been done, they would have repented long ago, 1 Cor. ii. 8; 
Rom. ix. 29; Sept. Gen. xxx. 27; xxxi. 27, 42; xl. 9; Jude. 
Kili, 23.5) xiv. 18; Isa. i, 9.5. xlviii. 18.5, Ps. 1. 18 3 liv.ahS ae 
xi. 2, etc. (in the conditional clause also tlre Aor. is used) ; Jno. 
xiv. 28 «i jyamaté pe, Exapnte av if ye loved me, ye would have 
rejoiced, xviii. 30; Acts xviii. 14 (the Imperf. in the conditional 
clause, Bar. iii. 13); Matt. xii. 7 ef éyvoxerte ... odK Av KaTediKdoaTeE 
had ye known, ye would not have condemned (the Pluperf. in the 
conditional clause, cf. Demosth. Pantaen. p. 624 b.; Liban. oratt. 
p. 117 c¢.); Judg. viii. 19; Jobiy. 12. In this case the Plup. 
also is used instead of the Aor. with a, as in1 Jno. ii. 19 & 
Aca && hyov, wewerixercav av pe yuav mansissent (atque adeo 
manerent), Jno. xi. 21 (vs. 82 Aor.) xiv. 7 (Soph. Oed. R. 984 ; 
Aeschin. Ctes. 310 a.; Demosth. cor. 324a.; Plat. Phaed. 106 c. ; 
Diog. L. 8,39; Aesop. 31,1; Lucian. fugit. 1; cf Hm. partic. av 
p.50). See in general Hm. partic. dv I.cap.10. The translators 
of the N. T. have sometimes been ignorant of this distinction of 
tenses, and sometimes have passed it over without notice. (The 
consequent clause with av is absorbed by an interrogative clause in 
286 1 Cor. xii. 19 ef Fw Ta wavta ev uédos, 70d, TO cpa ; Heb. vii. 11 & 
The. -erelwors bid Tis... lepwoduns uv, Tis ere ypela etc. for odwére dv Hy 
ypela etc. As to dv in the interrogatory apodosis, see Wisd. xi. 26 
TOS Ewewvev av TL, et py od HOéAncas ; On Acts vill. 31 see above.) 


In Mark xiii. 20 ef pr) Kdpios éxoddBwoe... odk av éowOn aca caps 
neither of the Aorists is put for the Imperf., but the sense is: had not the 
Lord shortened those days (in his decree), all flesh would have perished 


yi. 
* 


§ 42. THE CONJUNCTION “AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 305 


(might be regarded as already perished). In Heb. xi. 15 ci pev éxeivys 
€uvnovevorv... elxov av Kapov dvaxdapyat the Imperf. is used in the 
principal clause probably because it refers to a continued (past) action 
(Mtth. 1147; Mdv. 117); in Latin also the Imperf. is used in the same 
way (Zumpt, Gramm. 454) haberent: had they in mind ... they had 
opportunity (during their life) to return (and would not therefore, at the 
end of their life vs. 138, have made this profession). ‘The Aor. would have 
represented the éyewv Kxaupov as something occurring once, and quickly 
passing by. Another view of the Imperf. in hypothetical clauses (Franke, 
Demosth. p. 59, 74) is not to the purpose. 


In the consequent clause av may be omitted also, particularly 
with the Imperf. (Hm. Eurip. Hec. 1087; Soph. Elect. p. 132, and 821 
partic. av p. T0 sqq.; Bremi, exc. 4 ad Lys. p. 439 sq.; Mtth. 1152), 273 
and in later Greek was more and more frequently omitted, without St 
designing in all cases to.express the emphasis (the positiveness) orig- 
inally included in this construction without av (Kiihner II. 556). 
The several examples may be arranged as follows: 

a.) Imperf. in the condition, Imperf. in the conclusion; as, Jno. 

ix. 33 ed ur) 7v ovTOS Tapa Bed, ovK HdvVaTO Troveiv Ovdév Were he not 
from God, he could do nothing, Diog. Laert. 2, 24; Lycurg. orat. 
8,4; Plat. sympos. 198 c¢.; Gorg.514c¢. In Jno. viii. 39 the Codd. 
are about equally divided as to the omission or insertion of av; if 
it was used by the writer, it may have been merged by transcribers 
in the vdv which immediately follows. 

b.) Aorist in the conclusion, with the omission of 7 in the 
condition ; as, Gal. iv. 15 e¢ duvarov Tovs dbOarpovs tuav éEopvEavres 
édexaté zor, Where there is not much authority for dv. 

ce.) Aorist in the condition, Imperf. in the conclusion ; as, Jno. 
xy. 22 ef pa) jdAOov ... dwaptiay ovk elyov if I had not come, they 
would not have sin, cf. Diog. Laert. 2, 21. 

d.) Pluperf. in the conditional clause (Judge. viii. 19), Imperf. 
in the principal clause ; as, Jno. xix. 11 ov« eyes éEouciay ovdeuiav 
KAT €Wov, et 442) HV ToL dcdopévov avwber thou wouldst not have ... if it 
had not been given thee, Acts xxvi. 32; Rom. vii. 7 non cognoram 

.. nisi diceret ; also, in the immediately preceding tv duaptiay 
etc., where éyvwr is to be repeated with ef px) dia vdpov. 

This omission of ay occurs especially with xadov Av, eer, eyphv 287 
etc. Mdv. 119; Bmln. 140 f.; cf. Matt. xxvi. 24 cadov fv ade, ef ove Mhet. 
éyevvnOn etc., see above, § 41 a. 2. a, p. 282. 

1 Similar are such sentences in Latin as Flor. 4, 2,19 peractum erat bellum sine 
sanguine, si Pompeium opprimere (Caesar) potuisset, Horat. Od. 2, 17,27; Liv. 34, 29; 


Cic. fam. 12, 24,2; Tac. annal. 3,14; Sen. consol.ad Mare. I. See Zumpt, Gr. 8, 447. 
34 


806 $42. THE CONJUNCTION “AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 


2 Cor. xi. 4 ei 6 &pxdpevos adXov “Incotv Kynpiaaer... KadAds dvetyeOe 
is rendered: if he... preached, ye would bear with ete. (Cod. B alone has 
avéxeoGe, and it has been so printed by Lchm.). Here one would certainly 
expect éxypvocev, but as several words intervene the writer might easily 
have fallen into such an anacoluthon (7f... preaches another Jesus ... ye 
would bear with tt aveiy., as if he had written éxynpvacev. As, however, he 
had used xnpvooet, consistency required dvéyeoGe), or in order not to hurt 
the Corinthians he designedly changes the harsh dvéyeoGe into the hypo- 
thetical and consequently softer dvety.; in which case, to be sure, one 

322 would so much the more have expected av, as the antecedent clause does 
not correspond with a hypothetical period (cf. also Klotz, Devar. 487 sq.). 
We find something similar in Diog. L. 2, 69 «i rodro datAov éariv, ovK 
av ev tais tov Oedv éoptais éyivero. The passage in Demosth. Neaer. 
815 a. is of another kind. (That in Rom. iv. 2 éyer xavynpa is not put 
for elyey ay, as Riick. maintained, is apparent to one who attends to 
Paul’s reasoning, and has been correctly shown ‘by Kollner among recent 
expositors.) 


274 8. In relative clauses after 6s, dsTus, 6aos, d7rov etc., dv is used, 

bihel. a. With the Zndicative when some matter of fact, something 
certain therefore, is spoken of, ** sed cujus vel pars aliqua, vel ratio 
et modus dubitationem admittunt” (Hm. Vig. 819)1+; as, Mark 
vi. 56 drrov Gp eiserropeveto wherever he entered, ubicunque intrabat 
(it might be in different places and repeatedly), dco. av 7a TovTo 
avtov as many as at any time touched him; xadore dv Acts il. 45; 
iv. 85, as av 1 Cor. xii. 2. In all these instances with a Pret., as 
in Gen. ii. 19; xxx. 42; Isa. lv. 11; 2 Sam. xiv: 26; Ezek 
x. 11; Esth. viii. 17; 1 Macc. xiii. 20, and also in Greek authors, 
as Lucian. dial. m. 9,2, and Demon. 10; Demosth. I. Steph. p. 610 b. 
(Agath. 32,12; 117, 12; 287,138; Malal. 14,36). On the other 
hand, the Present Ind. (which Klotz p. 109 sqq., in opposition to 
Hm., declares to be inadmissible) in the N. T. in Luke viii. 18; 
x. 8; Jno. v. 19 has not any great external evidence in its favor, 
and in Mark xi. 24 the Ind. without dy is to be restored, from Codd. 
[Sin. also], as by Lchm. In the Sept. the Present often occurs, as 
ins. ci. 'B ? Proyv. 122% Ler xeve lo: 


In Matt. xiv. 36 we find dcou qyavro, éowOnoay, instead of the parallel 
in Mark vi. 56 dco av Hrrovro, éowovro. Both constructions are proper, 
according as the writer regarded the fact as in every respect definite or 
not. The first must be rendered: all who (as many as) touched him, of 


1 Klotz p. 145: In his locis quum res ipsa, quae facta esse dicatur, certa sit, pertinet 
illud, quod habet in se particula & incerti, magis ad notionem relativam, sive pronomen, 
sive particula est. 


§ 42. THE CONJUNCTION “AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 3807 


the persons then surrounding him, vs. 85. Mark does not limit the nar- 988 
ration to any particular place (as dou Gy eiseropevero shows), but says ‘th ed. 
generally: all who happened to touch him. Cf. Hm. de part. dv p. 26. 


b. With the Subjunctive, when the statement relates to some- 
thing objectively possible, that is, regarded as only conditionally 
liable to occur, and then a. In the Aorist (most frequently), of 
what may perhaps occur at a future time,— where in Latin the 
Fut. Perf. would be used; as, Matt. x. 11 els sy 8 dv woruw } Kopnv 828 
elséXOnte into whatever city ye may have entered, in quamcunque 
urbem, si quam in urbem, xxi. 22 6ca dy aitnonte quaecunque 
petieritis, xii. 832; Mark ix. 18; xiv. 9; Luke x. 35; Acts ii. 39; 

ii, 22, 23; viii. 19;. Rom. x. 13; xvi. 2; Jas. iv. 4; 1 Jno. iv. 15; 
Rev. xiii. 15, ete. For examples from Greek authors, see Bornem. 

ad Luc.p.65. From the Sept. cf. Gen. xxi. 6,12; xxii. 2; xxiv.14; 
evi &; xxvili. 15; xliv. 9'f.; Bxod. 1.22; ix. 19; x. 28; Lev. 
Meee 1 3; xi. 82; xx. 6, 9, 16 ff.; Num. v.10; vi. 2; Deut. 
xvii. 9; Isa. xi. 11. The Fut. for the Subjunctive occurs in Deut. 

v. 27; Jer. xlix.4; Judg.x.18; xi. 24 (Malch. hist. p. 288; Cinnam. 

I. 6, ed. Bonn.) ; Mtth. 1220. 8. In the Present, in reference 

to what may have already taken place or usually takes place, or 

is to be represented as continuous; as, Gal. v. 17 wa pr), & av 
Oédyre, Tadta Toure (what you may happen to desire), Col. iii. 17 
mav 0,7 dv route, 1 Thess. ii. T ws dv tpodos Oddy ete., Luke 
iors JNO, 1i..5'; vy. 19; 1:Cor. xvi. 2; Jas. iti. 4; Col. iii, 28. 975 
See, in general, Hm. part. av p. 113 sqq.; Vig. 819. In the Sept. eh 
ef. Gen. vi. 17; xi. 6; 1 Sam. xiv. 7; Lev. xv. 19; Exod. xxii. 9; 
(much more rare than the Aor.). 


In 2 Cor. viii. 12 a double construction occurs: ef 4 rpobupia mpdxerrar, 
Kalo €av €xn, ev’rpdsdextos, od Kad obK €xet. The distinction is obvious: 
the positive €xew in the proportion specified (xa#d) may still be viewed as 
various, according to what he may (perchance) have; the negative ov« eye 
is simple and definite. Cf. Lev. xxiv. 20; xxv. 16; xxvii. 12; xi. 34 
nav Bpdpa, > éecOerat, cis d dv ETEAOH Voup. 

In Attic prose av is commonly employed where relatives are construed 
with the Subjunctive ; yet there are well-established passages in which av 
is omitted (Rost 660 f.), and Hm. partic. av p. 113 has shown when it 
must be omitted; cf. Schaef. Demosth. I 657; Poppo, observ. p. 143 sqq. 5 
Jen. Lit.-Zeit. 1816, April, no. 69, and ad Cyrop. p. 129, 209, but see Bmln. 
212 ff. In the N. T. we find according to good Codd. [Sin. also] in Luke 
vili. 17 ob ydp éote... dmoxpudpov, 6 od yrwoOA (al. yrwoOnoerac) Kat eis 
davepov €AOy, which is to be rendered: which may not become known 
and come to light. The relative here points to a perfectly definite con- 


808 §42. THE CONJUNCTION ’AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 


ception, and not to anything whatever, quodcunque. On the other hand, 

one might have expected ay in Jas. ii. 10 dstis OAOV TOV vopov THPHTN, Traion 
289 de ev evi, yet it is not necessary, inasmuch as the writer conceives the case 
Tihel. as altogether definite: qui (si quis) ... custodiverit. So also in Matt. x. 33. 

Ou the other hand, in Matt. xviii. 4 Lchm. has already adopted the Fut. 


4. In indirect questions av is used with the Optative (after a Pret. 
324 or histor. Pres.) ; as, Luke i. 62 évévevov 7@ Tatpi, To Ti Av Oéot 
Kanreic bat adtov how he may perhaps wish him to be called (assumed 
that he has a wish in the case; t¢ @édor etc. would be, how he 
would wish him to be called), Acts v. 24; x. 17; xxi. 83 (see above 
§ 41, b. 5), Luke vi. 11 dveNddouv mrpos addjrovs, Th Ay TroIjoELav TO 
"Incod what they might do to Jesus, quid forte faciendum videretur 
(pondering in doubtful mood the different possibilities), ix. 46; 
Jno. xiii. 24 according to the reading vevet tovT@ Yiuov IT. ruPéc Oar 
Tis dv ein Trept ob Eyer (who wt might be, whom they should perhaps 
regard). The better reading, however, is vever ... kal Aéyer adTo: 
eve Tis EoTLV TEpt ov Aeyet. See Klotz p. 509; cf. Esth. iii. 13. 
5. After the particles of time av followed by a Subjunctive (Mtth. 
1194 f.) is used if an (objectively possible) action is to be expressed, 
—a case which can or will occur, but in regard to which there is no 
certainty when (how often) it will occur (Hm. partic. av p. 95 sqq.). 
Thus, a. 6tav i.e. 67 dv, Matt. xv. 2 virrrovtar Tas yelpas, 6Tav 
dptov €g Oiwat when (i.e. as often as) they eat, Jno. vill. 44; 1 Cor. 
ili. 4; Luke xi. 86; xvii. 10 67tav rwroujonte Tavta, Néyere when ye 
shall have done, Matt. xxi. 40 6tav €XOn 6 Kuplos ... Th ToMoet 
27 6°quando venerit. So usually with the Aorist Subjunctive’ for the 
bhed. Lat. Fut. exact., as in Mark viii. 88; Jno. iv. 25; xvi. 18; Rom. 
xi. 27; Acts xxiii. 85; 1 Cor. xv. 27; xvi. 3; 1 Jnowiisoeeee 
Heb. i. 6 (as Bohme and Wahl have already pointed out), while 
the Subj. Present for the most part denotes a frequently repeated 
action not limited to any particular time (Mtth. 1195), or exhibits 
something in itself future simply as a fact, 1 Cor. xv. 24 (along 
with the Subj. Aor.). Similar to this are jvixa dv 2 Cor. iii. 16 
(when ...%U shall have turned), dcaxis av (as often as) 1 Cor. xi. 25, 
26 (Pres.), ws av as soon as Rom. xv. 24; 1 Cor. xi. 84; Phil. ii. 28, 
b. The conjunction wnt that, as ws av} in Matt. x. 11 exe? ped: 
vate, éws av e&éhOnrte, Jas. v. 7; Luke ix. 27, dypis ob av in Rev. 
ii, 20 (Gen. xxiy. 14,19; Josh. ii. 16; xx.6,9; Exodi xyageem 
Isa. vi. 11; xxvi20; xxx. 17; Tob. vii. 11, and often); ¢fisopm 


1 We find in parallel clauses in Exod. xv. 16; Jer. xxiii. 20 ws with the Subj. and 
éws &v, according to the common text. 


§42. THE CONJUNCTION “AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 309 


Oed. R. 884; Xen. C. 8, 8, 18 and 46; An. 5,1,11; Plat. Phaed. 
59 e. etc., and usually in Attic prose, Rost 617. Further cf. § 41 b. 
3,2) b). IIpiv av does not occur in the N. T. 


The Fut. after orav in Rey. 4, 9 drav dbdcovce Ta Coa SdEav ... TEeTOdVTAL 
ol eikoot Téooapes etc., occurs according to a well-established reading for 
the Subjunctive guando dederint, as in Iliad. 20,335 GAN’ avaywpnoa, 6 re 325 
kev EvpPAjoea aitG. Other Codd. have ddr or dédcwor. In Luke xi. 2; 290 
xiii. 28; Matt. x. 19 there is preponderant authority for the Subjunctive. 1th ek 
In Rom. ii. 14 the Ind. Pres. wove? after drav is very doubtful (or rather a 
transcriber’s mistake for zou), and we should read with Lchm. and Tdf. 
movwow. On the other hand, in Mark xi. 25 oryjxere is supported by good 
Codd., and the Ind. can be as well tolerated (since it is intended to express 
a specification of time only externally: cum statis precantes) according 
to Klotz, Devar. 475 sq., as ‘it is attested by Codd. in Lycurg. 28, 3." In 
this case the Ind. Pres. or Fut. after grav sometimes occurs even in early 
authors, see Klotz as above, and pp. 477 sq. 690,° where formerly critics 
would not tolerate it (Jacobs, Anthol. pal. II]. 61; Achill. Tat. 452; 
Mtth. 1197) ; in later authors (cf. e.g. Exod. i. 16; Act. Apocr. 126) it 
frequently occurs (Jacobs in Act. Monac. I. 146; Schaef. ind. Aesop. 149). 
More singular appears, in Mark iii. 11, drav with an Indicative Preter. 
(Imperf.) in narration: 7a mvevpara... drav airov €VewpeEt, mposemurrev’ 
whenever they saw him (quandocunque), without var.; in Rey. viii. 1 with 
var. A Greek would probably have here employed (dre, émérav with) 
the Optative, Hm. Vig. 792;* yet in the former passage the Ind. can be 
accounted for as easily as in dcou ay nrrovro, see above, 8a. Cf. Gen. 
Xxxvili. 9; Exod. xvii. 11; Num. xi. 9; 1 Kings xvii. 34; Ps. cxix. 7; 
Thiersch p. 100 (and jvika dv Gen. xxx. 42; Exod. xxxiii. 8; xxxiv. 34; 277 
xl. 36, érdre éav Tob. vii. 11, éay Judg. vi. 8, where likewise a repeated bth el 
past act is expressed), also Polyb. 4, 82, 5; 18, 7, 10 (see Schweigh. on the ~ 
last passage); Aristid. Lept. § 3, 6; cf. Poppo, Thue. III. I. 313.4 In the 
Byzantine authors, 67av even in the sense of when (in reference to an indi- 
vidual fact in time past) is construed with the Ind. Aor.,as in Ephraem. 7119, 
5386, 5732 ; Theoph. p. 499, 503. Cf. also Tdf. in the Verhandel. p. 142. 


6. The particle of design é7ras with av denotes a purpose the 
accomplishment of which is still doubtful, or is regarded as dependa- 
ing on circumstances, wé sit, si sit (see Hm. Hurip. Bacch. 593, 1232; 


1 Bekker has conjectured dor. Others read 87° ev, and Blume says distinctly : indica- 
tivus per grammaticas leges h.1. ferri nequit. 

* The passages adduced by Gayler de partic. negat. p. 193 sq. may be regarded for 
the most part as uncertain. 

3 Fr. Mr. p. 801 insists on writing 87’ &, in order to show that &y here belongs to the 
verb in the sense of always. Cf. Schaef. Demosth. III. 192. Yet see Alotz, Dev. 688 sq. 

4 In the Sept. even &s &y occurs with the Ind. Pret. where a definite past action is 
spoken of, as in Gen. vi. 4; xxvii, 30 ds dy ef9AGev *laxdB, ete. 


810 § 43. THE IMPERATIVE. 


partic. dv p. 120 sq.) ud, si fieri possit, ut forte (cf. Bengel, Acts 
iii. 19; Rom. iii. 4) Isocr. ep. 8, p. 1016 ; Xen. Cyr. 5, 2,215; Plat. 
Gorg. 481a.; conv. 187e.; legg. 5, 788 d. ete ; Demosth. Halon. 
82c.; see Stallb. ad Plat. Lach. p. 24; Kru. 167. This applies 

291 well to the two N. T. passages which come under this head (Acts 

ithed xv, 17; Rom. iii. 4 are quotations from the O. T.; and in Matt. vi. 5 

326 dv is expunged on the authority of many Codd.) : Acts iii. 19 das 
dv &Owow Kaipoi avayvéews ut forte (si meae admonitioni peravo- 
noaTe Kal emiotpéparte parueritis) veniant tempora etc., Luke ii. 35. 
In both the quotations from the Sept. too, particularly in Acts 
xv., the meaning is plain. Besides cf. Gen. xii. 18; xviii. 19; 
1. 20; Exod. xx. 20,°26'; xxxii. 13; Num. xv: 405" xvi 
xxvil. 20; Deut. vill. 25 xvii..20; 2 Sam. xvii. 145°" Psiereee 
Hos: il. 6; Jer. xiit; Dan. a. 18 I Macca oe 


"Av after conjunctions and relatives never occurs with the Optative in 
the N. T. (but in Sept. Gen. xix. 8 — cf, however, xvi. 6 — xxxiui. 10; 
2 Mace. xv. 21); but once with the Inf. 2 Cor. x. 9 tva pa dd€w as ay 
exdhoPetv tyas that I may not seem to terrify you; which in oratio recta 
(Hm. de partic. dv p.179; Krii. 311) would run: ds ay éxpoBotps dp. 
-tamquam qui velim vos terrere. 

According to the best and most numerous authorities éay frequently 
occurs for av in the N. T. text after relatives (as in the Sept. and Apocryph. 
see Wahl, clay. apocryph. p. 187 sq.; Thilo, Act. Thom. p. 8, occasionally 
in the Byzantines, e.g. Malalas 5. p. 94, 144) ; as, Matt. v.19 (mot vii. 9) ; 
vill. 19; x.42; xi. 27; Jno. xv. 7; Luke xvii. 83; 1 Cor. vi. 18; xvi. 3; 
Gal. vi. 7; Eph. vi. 8, etc., and not unfrequently in the Codd. of Greek 
authors, even Attic. Recent scholars (in opposition to Schneider, Xen. 
Mem. 3, 10, 12) uniformly write ay for édv (see Schaef. Julian. p. V; Hm. 
Vig. 835; Bremi, Lys. p. 126; Boissonade, Aen. Gaz. p. 269; Stallb. 
Plat. Lach. p. 57; a more moderate judgment is given by Jacobs, Athen. 
p. 88; yet see the same author in Lection. Stob. p. 45 and on Achill. Tat. 
p. 831 sq., cf. also Valckenaer ad 1 Cor. vi. 18). The editors of the N. T. 

978 have not yet ventured to do this; and there may really be in éav for dy a. 

6th ed. peculiarity of the later (if not even of the earlier) popular language much 
like the Germ. etwan in relative clauses: was etwan geschehen sollte 
(when something occurs as it should be). Cf. Luke x. 8. 


§43. THE IMPERATIVE. 


1. The Imperative usually denotes an exhortation or command, 
but sometimes mere permission (permissivus) or leave (Kru. 


— -* 


§ 43, THE IMPERATIVE. 311 


163) 1, as in 1 Cor. vii. 15 ef 6 dic tos ywpiferar, ywpilecOw he may 327 
depart (on the part of the Christian partner it cannot and ought 

not to be hindered), xiv. 38 ed Tis ayvoe?, ayvoeirw (renunciation of 
further effective instruction). Where, however, this acceptation 292 
is necessary, must be determined on hermeneutical, not on gram- Tth ed 
matical, grounds ; and neither in Matt. vill. 82, on account of the 
parallel passage Luke viii. 82, nor in Jno. xiii. 27 or 1 Cor. xi. 6, 
can the Imperative be taken as simply permissive. On the former 
passage cf. BCrus.; in the latter ceypdcOw like cataxaduTréc Ow is 

to be understood of logical necessity (the one requires the other). 

On the other hand, Matt. xxvi. 45 xaOevdere 7d NouTOV Kali dva- 
maveo¥e was probably uttered permissively by Jesus in the tranquil, 
gentle, resigned mood resulting from the prayer: sleep on then and 
take your rest. The notion of irony is incompatible with the grave 
earnestness of the moment. Perhaps, however, there may be some- 
thing of that in Matt. xxiii. 32, and the tone of the discourse loses 

in force by a permissive interpretation. In Rey. xxi. 11 all is 
exhortation: let every one by adhering to his present course grow 
ripe for Christ’s approaching judgment; the fate of all is, as it 
were, already determined. 

2. When two Imperatives are connected by «at, the first contains. 
sometimes the condition (supposition) under which the action 
denoted by the second will take place, or the second expresses an 
infallible result (Mtth. 1159)?; as, Bar. ii. 21 KrWvate tov dpov 
Upav épydcacbat TH Bacihel ... Kal KaBicate él Ti yhv, Epiphan. 

II. 368 eye Tovs Tob Deod ANoyous Kata Yruynv cou Kal xpelav jun exe 
"Erupaviov. In the N. T. this explanation has been applied to Eph. 
iv. 26. (from Ps. iv. 5.) dpyifec@e Kal uy dpuaprtavete be angry and 979 
sin not i.e. if ye be angry ye do not sin (Rii.), Jno. vii. 52 épedvnaop bth ed 
kai oe search, and thou wilt see (Ki.), cf. divide et impera. In 
Hebrew, constructions of this sort are certainly frequent; Ewald, 


1 According to Moller (Schneidewin, Philolog. VI. 124 ff.) the Imper. Pres. only should 
be so used. This, it is true, is found in the above passages of the N. T.; but the 
question in reference to the N. T. will not be regarded as thereby decided. 

2 What Bornem. on Luke xxiv. 39 adduces from Greek authors, is of a different 
nature. This mode of expression, however, cannot be considered as thereby a Hebra- 
ism; see Gesen. Leb. S. 776 (where, however, some passages are quoted which remain 
doubtful, as Ps. xxxvii. 27, or which at any rate ought to have been separated from 
the others Gen. xlii. 18; Isa. viii. 9). With Eph. iv. 26 (p. 312) those passages have 
no analogy, otherwise the words of Paul must mean: if ye are angry, yet do not sin, 
or even: if ye would not sin, then be angry. It is therefore surprising that, notwith- 
standing this, Zyro (Stud. u. Krit. 1841. 3 Heft S.685) has had recourse again to this 
alleged Hebraism. 


328 


298 
Tth ed. 


312 § 43, THE IMPERATIVE. 


krit. Gramm. 653. But in Jno. vii. the expression is more forcible 
than cai dee (Lucian. indoct. 29) would have been. The result 
of the search is so certain, that the exhortation to search is at the 
same time an exhortation to see. We find the regular construction 
in Luke x. 28. In the passage from Eph. Paul’s meaning is un- 
questionably this: we should not let anger lead us, into sin, ef. 
vs. 27 (sce Bengel and BCrus. in loc.) ; vs. 81 cannot be urged 
against this. It is only the grammatical acceptation of the expres- 
sion that is doubtful. It is either logically a single proposition 
opyComevot 7) dwapt. divided into two grammatically, or opyifece 
must be taken permissively (cf. the similar passage Jer.x.24). For, 
the assertion (Mey.) that of two closely connected Imperatives the 
one cannot denote a permission and the other a command, is incor- 
rect; we may say with perfect propriety: Well, then, go (I give 
you leave), but do not stay out above an hour. 

1 Tim. vi. 12 déywvilov rov Kadov dyava tis tiotews, ériAaBod THs aiwviov 
Cwns (where the asyndeton is not without special force) must be rendered 


simply: fight the good fight of faith, lay hold of (in and by that fight) 
eternal life; cf. Mark iv. 39, see Fr. “ExAapB. r7s Gwys is not here ex- 
hibited (though it might have been) as the result, but as the very essence, 


of the contest; and émruAapf. does not signify attain, receive. In 1 Cor. 


xv. 34 éxvylate Sixaiws Kat py dpapravere are obviously two exhortations, 
one of which (Aor.) is to be carried into effect at once, while the other 
(Pres.) requires continuous effort. 

Constructions like Jno. ii. 19 Avoare Tov vadv Totrov, Kal év Tpiciv Tépats 
éyep@ airov, Jas. iv. 7 dvriotyte TO diaBorw, Kal hevgerar ad ipav (vs. 8), 
Eph. v. 14 (Sept.) dvdora é« trav vexpGv, Kal éripavoet cor 6 Xpirrds, may 
be resolved like two Imperatives connected by «at: ¢f ye resist the devii, 
he will, etc. But this, grammatically, requires no remark, as the Impera- 
tive has here its ordinary import (hortatory), and the structure of these 
sentences can, indeed must (as incomparably more forceful), be retained in 
the translation also. Cf. Lucian. indoct. 29 robs Kovpéas tovtous ézioxewar 
kal ower, dial. d. 2,2 evpvOua Batve cat ope, Plato, Theaet. 149 b.; rep. 
5, 467c.; see Fr. Mt. as above. Even recent expositors quite erro- 
neously take the Imperative in Jno. ii. 19; xx. 22 for the I'ut., supporting 
their view by a reference to the Heb. in such passages as Gen. xx. 7; 
xlv.18 (Glass. Philol. sacr. I. 286). Inasmuch as every command extends 
into future time, the Fut. tense, as a general expression of futurity, may 
be used for the Imperative (see no. 5); but the special form (the Impera- 
tive) cannot, in turn, be employed for the more general (Fut.). Such 


980 a substitution would occasion a confusion of tongues, and the observation 


6th ed, 


above alluded to, like so many others, is the offspring of the closet, not of 
attention to the phaenomena of living speech. Olshausen has correctly 


a 


§ 43, THE IMPERATIVE. oe) 


opposed Tholuck (and Kiihnél) on Jno. xx. 22, and Tholuck has rectified 829 © 
his error. In Luke xxi. 19 the Fut. is the better reading; see Meyer. 


8. In the N.T. the distinction between the Aorist Imperative 
and Present Imperative is in general maintained (Hm. emend. rat. 
p. 219 and Vig. 748, cf. H. Schmid de imperativi temporib. in ling. 
graec. Viteb. 1833, 4to. and especially Bmln. 169 ff., and in reference 
to the latter, Moller in Schneidewin Philologus VI. 115 ff.). For 

a. The Aorist Imperat. (cf. § 40 note 2.) denotes an action that 
is either transient and instantaneous (Ast, Plat. polit. p. 518; Schaef. 
Demosth. IV. 488), or to be undertaken but once; as, Mark i. 44 
ceauTov SetEov TO Lepet, lll. 5 Extewov THY XElpa cov, Vi. 11 ExtwakaTe 
Tov xouv, Jno. ii. T yeutoate tas vdpias Udatos etc., xi. 44 AdcaTE 
avtov (Adfap.) x. adpete avtov vrdyev, 1 Cor. v.13 éEdpate tov 994 
movnpov €& duav avtav, Acts xxiil. 23 érouudoate otpatiwotas diaxo- Tih el. 
alovs forthwith make ready to march. Besides these, see Mark 
ieee, 403; x. 21; xiii 28; xiv. 15,44; xv. 30; Luke xx. 24; 
$0.11. 8; iv. 35; vi. 10; xi. 395 xiii. 29; xviii. 11 ; xxi. 6; Acts 
MEeUyT. So ;1XGkLs xvi. 95 xxi/'395 ‘xxii. 18; 1 Cor. xvi. 1; 
Hph. vi. 18, 17; Col. iii. 5; Tit. iii. 13; Philem.17; Jas. iii. 18 ; 
iv. 8,9; 1 Pet. iv. 1; 2 Pet. i1.5,10. When something to be 
_ carried into effect at once is expressed, sometimes vdpy or vuvi is 
added to the Aorist Imperat.; as, Acts x. 5; xxiii. 15; 2 Cor. 
viii. 11. The Aorist Imperat. is used also when 67 strengthens the 
injunction, as in Acts xiii. 2; 1 Cor. vi. 20 (Judith v. 3; vii. 9; 
Bar. iii. 4; Xen. C. 1, 38,9; Soph. El. 524 ; Klotz, Devar. 395). 

b. The Present Imperat. denotes an action already begun and 
to be continued (Poppo, Thue. III. II. 742), or one that is per- 
manent and frequently recurring. Hence it is commonly employed 
in the measured and dispassionate language of laws and moral 
precepts, e.g. Rom. xi. 20 wu tynroppoves (as thou now art), xii. 20 
€ay Trea 0 éxOpos cov, omtfe avtov (constantly in such case), 
xiii. 3 Oérevs pu HoBeta Oar THv éEovalav ; Td yaOdv Tole. Jas. ii. 12 
oUTM adElTE Kai OUTW TroLEiTE, WS Sia VOmov EXEvOepias etc., 1 Tim. 
iv. T tovs BeByrous Kal ypawders pvOous tapaitod, cf. Jas. iv. 11; 
Were fim. iy. 1151385 v..7, 19; viv 11; 2 Tim. ii.1, 8, 14; Tit. 
pemerpamiewe Eb Oor. ix, 24's x. 14, 25; xvi. 13; Phil. ii. 12; iv. 8, 
Deen iv. 20, 26, 28; vi. 4> Jno. i. 44; xxi. 16; Mark 
vill. 15; ix. 7,39; xiii. 11; xiv.38. Hence in ordinary discourse 
the Present Imperat. conveys more softness and reserve of expres- 
sion, and frequently denotes merely advice (Moller as above, 123 f.). 830 


Accordingly the Present and the Aorist Imperat. are sometimes 
40 


281 
bth ed. 


331 


314 § 43, THE IMPERATIVE. 


used together, to denote respectively the distinctions above specified ; 
as, Jno. ii. 16 dpate tadta évTedOev, wn Tovet Te TOV oiKoV TOD 
maTpos jou otKoy éumopiov, 1 Cor. xv. 84 éxvywate duKaiws 
kal yy) paptavete, Acts xii. 8 mweptBarod TO wdtiov cov kK. 
akoNovbes pov, Rom. vi. 13 undé maptotavete TA pédAN Duov 
o7Aa adixias TH dpaptia, AAdka TAPATTHOATE EavTOS TO OE@ ws Ex 
vexpov Covras, Mark ii. 9; Jno. v. 8, 11; ii. 8; cf. Plato, rep. 9, 572 d. 
Oés Towvy Taduw ... véov viov év Tots TovTOV av HOEct TEP pappévor. 
TiOnus. TiO € Tolvuy Kai Ta adta exetva Trepi avdTov ryiryvopeva ( Mtth. 
1128), Xen. C.4, 5,41; Demosth. Aphob. 2, p. 557 c. and 588 a. ; 
Kurip. Hippol. 475 sq. and Heracl. 635. 

4. Occasionally this distinction may seem to be disregarded (1 
Pet. ii. 17), and the Aorist Imp. in particular appear to be employed 
where the Present Imp. would have been strictly required (Bhdy. 
393). It must be remembered, however, that in many cases it 
depends on the writer whether or not he will represent the action 
as occurring in a point of time and momentary, or as only com- 
mencing, or likewise continuing. Neither must it be overlooked 
that the Aorist Imp. is in general more forcible and stringent than 
the Present Imp. (see no. 8), and the strengthening of discourse 
is mainly a subjective matter ; cf. Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 235.4 


‘In accordance with these principles we must judge of the following 


passages: peivate év é€uoi Jno. xv. 4 etc. (also pévere Luke ix. 4; 
1 Jno. ii. 28, wéve 2 Tim. iii. 14, wevérw 1 Cor. vii. 24 etc.), 1 Jno. 
v. 21 durakate Eavtods ao TaHV cidwrov (similarly 1 Tim. vi. 20; 
2 Tim. i. 14., on the other hand 2 Pet. iii. 17 ; 2'Tim. iv. 15), Heb. 
iii. 1 Kkatavonjcate TOV aTOGTONOV Kal apYLEepea THS OMoroyias 7MaV, 
Mark xvi. 15 sropevOévres eis TOV Koopov aravTa KnpvUEAaTE TO 
evayyédtov, Jno. xiv. 15 tas évTodds Tas euas typynoate, Jas. vy. T 
paxpoOupnoate ws THs Tapovcias Tov Kupiov, cf. Matt. xxvii. 19; 
2 Tim. i. 8;.11..3 piv.i2¢ 1:Petei) 135 25 ve2.° The Acneiigas 
will be found quite suitable in all these passages. In Rom. xv. 
11 (Sept.) Jno. vii. 24 the Present Imp. and the Aorist Imp. even 
of the same verb are thus connected together. In many passages 
the reading varies e.g. Acts xvi. 15; Rom. xvi. 17; as also in the 
Codd. of Greek Fie these two forms are often interchanged, 


1 In opposition to Schaef: Demosth. III. 185 he remarks: tenuissimum discrimen esse 
apparet, ut saepenumero pro lubitu aut affectu loquentis variari oratio possit. Nam 
quid mirum, qui modo lenius iusserat: okometre (Demosth. Lept. 483), eundem statim 
cum majore quadam vi et quasi intentius flagitantem addere: Aoylcacbe. Et plerumque, 
si non semper, apud pedestres quidem scriptores, in tali diversorum temporum con- 
junctione praes. imperativus antecedit, sequitur aoristus. 


§ 43, THE IMPERATIVE. 315 


Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 99, 222, especially where they differ only in 
a single letter. Sometimes also one of these two Imperatives has 
become obsolete, — thus AaBe is constantly employed, notrAduBave ; 
or one of the forms predominates, as in the N. T. dépe over éveyxe. 
See Bmln. 172. 


Respecting the Imperat. (Pres.) after py, see § 56, 1, p. 501 sq. 

The Perf. Imp. is used when an action, complete in itself, is represented 
as to continue in its effects, as in Mark iv. 39 in Christ’s address to the 
troubled sea: mrediuwoo be (and remain) still! Cf. .also éppwoo, éppwobe 289 
Acts xxiii. 30; xv. 29. See Hm. emend. rat. p. 218; Mtth. 1126 f.; tb ed 
Bmln. 174. Cf. Xen. M. 4, 2,19; Thuc. 1, 71; Plato, Euthyd. 278 d. 
and rep. 8, 553 a. 


5. The Imperative may also be superseded by other forms of ex- 
pression : 

a. By the phrase—originally elliptical — (my command is, or 
see) that thou do not tarry. We find o7as émréfe 7 prapo® Dem. 
Mid. 414. (67s with Fut. Indic. Mdv. 126), Eurip. Cycl. 595 ; 
Aristoph. nub. 825, (less frequently with the Subjunctive, Xen. 

OC. 1, 3,18; Lucian. dial. d. 20,2). In the N. T. (the weakened 

§ 44,8) wa is thus used with the Subjunctive in Mark v. 23 wa 

- €av ériOys Tas yetpas avTH, also in 2 Cor. viii. T (but not in 1 Cor. 

v. 2; 1 Tim. i. 3); and in the 3d Pers. in Eph. v 33 7 yuvi) wa 
goBita tov avdpa (an Imperative precedes). In the Greek poets, | 
however, iva occurs in the same connection (Soph. Oed. C. 155), 
and also in later prose ; as, Kpict. 23 ay wrwydv ttroxpivecOai oe 296 
Gdn (06 SiddcKaros), iva Kat TodTOv evpuas brroxpivy, Arrian. Epict. Th et 
4,1, 41; and in the Byzantines even with the Ind. Pres., Malal. 

13 p. 334, 16 p. 404. In Latin cf. Cic. fam. 14, 20: ibi ut sint 
omnia parata. 

b. By a negative question with the Future (Hm. Vig. 740; Rost 
678): wilt thou not come immediately? Aristoph. nub. 1295 ov« 
aTrobum&ers ceavTov amo THs oikias; Xen. Cyr. 2, 3, 22. Cf. Acts 
xiii. 10 od travon diactpébwv tas odods Kupiov; 4 Macc. v. 10 ov« 
eEurveces ; This construction, however, is for the most abe more 
forcible than the Imperative. 

c. In categorical sentences by the Future Cespecially in the 
negative form): thow shalt not touch it, Matt. vi. 5 ovx éon as 
uToxpitat, v. 48 (Lev. xi. 44). In Greek authors this mode of 
expression passes as milder than the Imperative, Mtth. 1122; Bhdy. 
378; Sintenis, Plut. Themist. 175 sqq.; Stallb. Plato, rep. I. 295 ; 
Weber, Demosth. p. 869 sq.; (as to the Latin, see Ramsh. 8. 421). 832 


316 § 43. THE IMPERATIVE. 


But in Hebrew it has established itself in the emphatic diction of 
legislation (Ewald, krit. Gr. 531); hence in quotations from the 
Old T.: Matt. v. 21, 27, 33 od dovedoess, od wowyevous, Luke iv. 12; 
Acts xxiii. 5; Rom. vii. 7; xii..9; 1 Cor. ix. 9 (Heb. x30 
Sept.). Only the fifth commandment tiwa tov tratépa ete. (from 
Sept.) Matt. xv. 4; xix. 19; Eph. vi. 2, etc. is expressed in the 
Imperat. In Rom. vi. 14 the Fut. expresses simple expectation. 
This form of expression may be in itself either stern or mild ;— 
depending on the tone with which it is uttered. 

d. By the Infinitive: to proceed! 'This, not to mention antique 
and epic diction, occurs in Greek prose, and not only when a com- 
mand is uttered with excitement or imperious brevity (Hm. Soph. 
Oed. R. 1057; Schaef. Demosth. ITI. 530; Poppo, Thue. I. I. 146; 
Bhdy. 538),! but also in requests, wishes, and prayers (Bremi, 
Dem. 230; Stallb. Plat. rep. 1. 388; Fr. Rom. III. 86; Mdv. 155. 
Compare the ancient form of salutation ya(pew Acts xv. 23; Jas. 

283 i.1). Hxpositors have often been over-ready to discover this usage 

be in aa ss (Georgi, Hierocr. I. I. 58); altogether incorrectly in 
1 Thess. iii. 11; 2 Thess. ii. 17; ili. 5, where as the accent shows 
Imperatives occur. In other passages the change of construction, 
in sentences of some length, has been overlooked: in Luke ix. 3 
we find prjre paBdov ... évewv, as if wndev aipew had been employed 
in the preceding part of the sentence; both constructions might 
have followed eizrev mrpos avdtovs, and the writer certainly thought of 
éyew as an Infinitive depending on eizev. In the parallel passage 
Mark vi. 8 f. we find another change of structure. Cf. Arrian. Al. 
4, 20,5 od viv dirakov thy apyjv: el 6€... ov O€ ... Tapadodvas. 
Similarly Rom. xii. 15, see § 63. In other passages also the regu- 
lar grammatical connection has been misunderstood: in Rey. x. 9 
dodvar undoubtedly must be joined with Aéywv ; in Col. iv. 6 etdévar 

297 is an Inf. elucidating the preceding predicates of Noyes. Only in 

Uhel Phil. iii. 16 waAnv ... T® avT@ otovyxet is the Inf. most easily taken 
for the Imperat.; it points out here with peculiar effect the un- 
changing law of progress for the Christian life. Cf. Stallb. ad Plat. 
Gorg. 447 b. 


To the imperative wa under a. Gieseler in Rosenm. Repert. II. 145 
refers the use of a iva in John ete., as in Jno. i. 8 ov« Hv éxetvos TO POs GAN 
iva paptupyon but he was to bear witness; ix. 3; xiii. 18, But the 

8338 construction can only have this meaning when Wa signifies in order that ; 


ry 


1 Thus in laws and moral rules in Hesiod. opp. et dd., in Theognis, in Hippocrates, 
in Marc. Anton. See Gayler, partic. negantt. p. 80 sq. 


§ 44, THE INFINITIVE. 317 


and then an ellipsis, at least of a general kind, as yéyove totro,* underlies 
the usage, though John himself in consequence of frequent use regarded it 
in particular passages as nothing more than but in order that, cf. Fr. Mt. 
840 sq. An expositor, on the contrary, if he wishes to do his duty, can and 
must in every case give naturally the special ellipsis from the context; as, 
Jno. i. 8 he himself was not the light of the world, but he came (7AGev vs. 7) 
that he might bear witness ; ix. 8 neither hath this man sinned nor his 
parents, but he was born blind that... might be made manifest (cf. 1 Jno. 
ii. 19). In xiii. 18 there is probably an aposiopesis, which may be easily 
explained psychologically: I speak not of you all, I know those whom I 
hawe chosen, but (I have made this choice) that ... might be fulfilled ete. ; 
see BCrus. (if we do not prefer to suppose that Jesus, instead of giving 
utterance to the painful fact in his own language, continues in the words 
of the Psalmist, cf. 1 Cor. ii. 9). In Jno. xv. 25 éuionody pe dwpedy in the 
quotation shows that peuirjxacw must be repeated before va. In Mark 
xiv. 49 the coming forth of the Jews against Jesus, in the manner de- 
scribed in vs. 48, is understood as predicted. Lastly, in Rey. xiv. 13 from 
amoOvnckovres the word dofvncKkover may be supplied before twa. ete. 

Note. In the N.T. text it is occasionally doubtful, whether a verbal 
form that answers equally for the Imperat. and (the 2d person of) the 994 
Indie. is to be taken for the former or the latter; e.g. Heb. xii. 17 tore, 6th ed 
drt Kal perereita OeAwv KAnpovopncat Ti evAoylav azedoKyacOn, [xili. 23] 

1 Cor. vi. 4 Bwworika pev ovv Kpirynpia édv exnre, Tods efovdevnpévovs ev TH 

exkAnoia, tovTovs Kabilere, 1.26; xi. 26; Rom. xiii. 6; Eph. ii. 22; 
Phil: ii. 15, 22; Jno. xiv. 1; 1 Pet.i.6; ii. 5. In all such cases the 
decision must depend on the context; and the question belongs not to 
Grammar but to Hermeneutics. 


§ 44, THE INFINITIVE.? 298 
Tth ed. 


1. The Infinitive, inasmuch as it expresses the idea of the verb 
purely and simply i.e. without reference to a subject, is least 
qualified of all the verbal forms to figure as a part of speech in a 834 
grammatical sentence. It is so used, a. in expressing a concise, 
hurried command (§ 43, 5d.) ; or, b. when introduced adverbially ; 
or, c. subjoined absolutely. Under b. comes only the phrase as 
évos eireiv Heb. vii. 9 (Krii. 178). To c. may be referred (Krii. 
179) Phil. iv. 10 dveOdrere 7d irép éuod dpoveiv as to your regard 


1 To say that there is nothing to be supplied (as de Wette does), is not satisfactory ; 
at any rate it must be shown how and by what means {va assumes that import. 

2 K. HE. A. Schmidt on the Infinitive. Prenzlau, 1823. 8vo. ; MZ. Schmidt on the Infin. 
Ratibor, 1826. 8vo.; Hichhoff on the Infin. Crefeld, 1833. 8vo. Cf. MeAlhorn in the 
allgem. Lit. Z. 1833. Ergzbl. nr. 110. 


318 § 44, THE INFINITIVE. 


Jor me, though another construction also is possible here. Butan 
Inf. which is added to a clause as its complement (infinit. epexe- 
geticus), generally to express design (Rost 687), is related to the 
last use, or rather coincides with it essentially, Matt. ii. 2 7A@opev 
Tposkuvyjcat avt@ (in order) to worship him (after éoyouat Matt. 
xi. 7; xx. 28; Heb. ix, 24; Rev. xxii. 12; Jno. iv. 1o¢93inee 
i. 17, and wéuzrw or azvrooréA\Xw Mark iii. 14; 1 Cor. i. 17; xvi. 8, 
and, besides, Acts v. 81; Rom. x. 7; 1 Cor. x..7); 2.Cor.cge 
Hppocdpny vmas evi avdpl mapévov ayvnv TapactTicas TO Xpiorto, 
Col.i. 22; 2Cor.ix.5; x. 18,16; Jno. xiii. 24 vever rovT@ wudéo bau 
(cf. Diod. S. 20, 69), Rev. xvi. 9 od petevoncay dodvar atte doar, 
2 Pet. iii. 2 (1 Sam. xvi. 1) Phil. iv. 12. In other passages it 
denotes the result (as, in the early language, design and result 
were not yet distinguished, Bmln. 8. 839) Col. iv. 6 0 Xoyos tar... 
ddaTe nptupévos ... eldévar Tas etc. seasoned with salt, to know 
(so that ye may know), Heb. v. 5; or the mode of carrying into 
effect, as in Acts xv. 10 ré areupafere Tov Oeov émiBetvar Guyov émt Tov 
Tpaxnrov Tav pabntav imponendo ugum, Heb. v. 5 (1 Pet. iv. 3). 
Lastly, in Eph. iii. 6 the Infin. clause gives the substance of the 
puatnpiov vs. 4; cf. also Eph. iv. 22. In Greek authors this lax 
use of the Inf. is carried much farther, Schaef. Soph. II. 524 ; 
Jacob, Lucian. Tox. 116; Held, Plut. Aem. P. 185sq. The Inf. 
of design is particularly frequent (Soph. Oed. C.12; Thue. 1, 50; 
4,8; Her. 7, 208; Plut. Cim. 5; Arrian. Al.1, 16,10; 4, 16, 4) 
985 Mtth. 1234; Krii. 186 (though the Greeks, after verbs of going 
bhel. or sending, still more frequently employ the Participle, cf. Acts 
Ville pea Le) 
Such relations are more distinctly denoted sometimes by dsre before the 
Inf, as in Luke ix. 52; Matt. xxvii. 1. On the above passage in Matt. 
299 where the explanation of Fr. is very far-fetched cf. Strab. 6,824; Schaef. 
ith eds ad Bos ellips. p. 784, and Soph. Oed. Col. p. 525; Mtth. 1232. In the 
Byzantine writers wsre with the Inf. instead of the Inf. alone is peculiarly 
common, e.g. Malal. p. 885 €BovAetoaro waste xBAnOnvat tiv wevOepay, p. 434. 
Cf. also Heinichen, ind. ad Euseb. IIT. 545. <A parallel to Luke, as above, 
occurs in Euseb. H. E. 3, 28, 3: eiseAOety more ev Badaveiw dste Aovoacbat, 
335 This extended use of the particle in the later language it is better to rec- 
ognize in the N. T. also, than to consent to forced interpretations. ‘Qs 
before the Inf. occurs only in Acts xx. 24 otdevds Adyov zowodpat, ode exw 
Thy Woxyy pov TYLlaV ELavTe, os TeAELO@oaL TOV Spdpov pov peta xapas I” 
order to finish my course etc., see Bornem. Schol. p. 174 sq. 


Other forms of the Infin. epexeget. are more naturally annexed 


§ 44, THE INFINITIVE. 319 


to a proposition or a clause, and assume the form of a grammati- 
eally governed word, which they were considered to be in part by 
earlier grammarians:? a. Mark vii. 4 7odda & trapéXaPov Kpatety 
(observanda acceperunt), Matt. xxvii. 384 édwxayv avt@ Trretv d€os, 
Eph. iii. 16 (Thue. 2, 27; 4, 86; Lucian. asin. 43; Diog. L. 2,51). 
b. 1 Cor. ix. 5 €yowev eEovclav yuvaixa trepiayeww, ix. 4; Luke viii. 
8 6 éyav @Ta axovew axoveTo, ii. 1; Acts xiv. 5; Eph. iii.8; Heb. 
— xi. 15 Kaipos avaxapryas, iv. 1 (Plato, Tim. 38 b.; Aesch. dial. 3, 2) 
Mtth. 1235. In this construction a subject even may be added to 
the Inf., as in Rom. xiii. 11; cf. Schoem. Plut. Cleom. 187. 

The Inf. is construed with Adjectives in 2 Tim. i. 12 déuvatos 
Thy Tapayxnyv pov purdéac (Thuc. 1, 139.), Heb. xi. 6 ; vi. 10 ov 
aducos 0 Geos émridabécOar etc., 1 Pet. iv. 3; 1 Cor. vii. 39; Mark 
it's) 2 Cor. iii. 5; Luke xv. 19; Acts xiii. 25 ; Heb. v. 11; 2 Tim. 

ii. 2; Luke xxii. 33. Cf. Ast, Plat. legge. p. 117; Stallb. Plat. 
Huthyd. 204 ; Weber, Demosth. 261 ; Bhdy. 361. 

2. But the Inf. may also enter into the construction of a sentence 
as an integral part of it; and then its nature as a noun more or less 
clearly appears. In such cases it is used sometimes as the subject 
and sometimes as the object. It serves as subject (Mtth. 1259) in 
sentences such as Matt. xii. 10 e¢ fears tois ca48 Bact Oepamrevetv 
ts it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day (is healing ete. lawful) ? 
Xv. 26 ovK Ett Kadov AaBely TOV dpTov Tav Téxvwy, 1 Thess. iv. 3 286 
ToUTO ott OEAnwa TOD Oeod.... aTéyecOas ... ard THS Topvelas (Where Mth et. 
0 aylacpos bua precedes, which also might have been expressed by 
an Inf.), Acts xx. 16 d7ws pu yévnrat ait@ ypovoTtpiBycat (Weber, 336 
Dem. 213), Matt. xix. 10; Eph. v.12; Phil.i. 7; Gal. vi. 14; Jas. 300 
i. 27; Rom. xiii. 5 ; 1 Cor. xi. 20 ; Heb. vi. 6; ix. 27; 1 Pet. ii. 15, he 
If in such cases the Infin. itself has a subject, whether a substantive, 
adjective, or participle, this is usually connected grammatically 
with the Inf. and put in the Accusative; as, Matt. xvii. 4 «adov 
€otw was ode elvat, xix. 24; Jno. xviii. 14; 1 Cor. xi. 13; 1 Pet. 

ii. 15 ; Acts xxv. 27 ; Luke ix. 383; xviii. 25. Cf. Matthiae, Eurip. 
Med. p. 526; Schwarz, de soloec. discip. Ch. p. 88 sq. When the 
subject is subjoined to the leading clause (Phil. i. T Séavov enor 


1 Likewise by those who thought that in the example adduced under b. @xouer 
etovolay mepidyew, a Tod is omitted before the Inf. (Haitinger in Act. Monac. III. 301) : 
this is put when the Inf. is regarded definitely as a Gen. (noun) ; without rod it is the 
Inf. epexeget. The two constructions are somewhat differently conceived, Mtth. 1235. 
So in Latin, Cic. Tuse. 1,41: tempus est abire (cf. Ramshorn S. 423), in other passages 
abeundi. See in general Stallb. Plat. Phil. p. 213 and Euthyphr. p. 107. (As in Luke 
i. 9 we find ZAaxe Tod Ovuidioa:, so in Demosth. Neaer. 517 c. Awyxaver Bovdcver.) 


320 § 44, THE INFINITIVE. 


tovTo dpovely etc.), the adjectives construed with the Infin. stand 
either in the Acc. (Matt. xviii. 8 xadov coi éotw eisenOeiv eis tip 
Conv ~wXov 1) KUAAOY), or in the case of the subject, according 
to an attraction common in Greek authors; as, 2 Pet. ii. 21 xpeirrov 
WW avtots, pi) émeyvmxévat IV OOov THs Sikatoavyns 1) ETLyVodDaLD 
émiotpéwat, Acts xv. 25 (var.) cf. Thuc. 2, 87; Demosth. funebr. 
153a., 156a.; Xen. Hier. 10,2; Bhdy. 859; Kru. 180 (Zumpt 
505). In Heb. ii. 10 both constructions are united: ésperep 


avT@...ayayovtTa... Tereraoae cf. Mark ix. 27; Matt. xviii. 8 
(Plut. Coriol. 14). 


It is further to be remarked that 
a. The Inf. in this case sometimes has the Article: viz. where it serves 
directly as a verbal noun, which takes place not only in sentences such as 
Rom. vii. 18 76 GéXew rapdxerrat pot, 76 dé KarepydlecOat 75 Kaddv ov, 2 Cor. 
vii. 11 atro rotto 76 Kara Oedv AuryOjvar roonV KaTepyacaro Suiv orovdiy, 
Phil. i. 21, where the finite verb with its adjuncts forms a complete predi- 
cate; but also in the impersonal phrases xaAov, aicypdv éor etc. (Rost 681), 
if special force is intended to be given to the notion expressed by the Inf. 
e.g. 1 Cor. vil. 26 xadov dvOpdzw 76 ovtws etvat, Gal. iv. 18 Kaddv 7d Lyrodabar 
év KaX@ wavrote, Rom. xiv. 21; 1 Cor. xi. 6. In the former case the 
Article could hardly be omitted; but in the latter xadov dvOpdr@ ovrus 
etvau tt ts good for a man so to be (cf. 1 Cor. vii. 1; xiv. 385) would have 
been less forcible in expression.’ Phil. i. 29 may also be reckoned in the 
second class; in 1 Thess. iv. 6 one such Inf. with the Article is followed 
by another without it (cf. Plat. Gorg. 467 d.; Xen. Cyr. 7, 5, 76); but in 
Rom. iv. 13 the Inf. 76 «Anpovopov eivat appears as a species of apposition 
to 7 érayyeAia. In Greek authors compare with the above, Plat. Phaed. 
62d.; Gorg. 475 b.; Xen. M. 1, 2,1; Diod. S. 1, 98. 
b. Instead of the Inf., especially when its subject is to be expressed with 
special force, a complete clause also is used with édy, ¢i, va (according to 
the import) ;.as, Mark xiv. 21 xaddov jv aire, ef odk éyevvnOn, 1 Cor. vii. 8 
Kadov avrois éorw, cov petvwow ds Kayo, Jno. Xvi. 7 ovpdeper tyty, va eyo 
301 azé\Ow. Respecting wa, see below, no. 8. This is in part a general 
ith el. peculiarity of the (later) popular language, which prefers circumstantiality ; 
287 in part it is to be referred to the Hellenistic tinge of the N. T. diction. 
6th, “Yat something similar occurs in Greek authors, as in Isocr. Nicocl. p. 40, 46. 
B87 Likewise, when the Inf. is joined with éovi in the sense of 7¢ ts lawful, 
or tt ts possible etc. to ..., the Inf. is itself the subject; as, Heb. ix. 5 (Ast, 
lexic. Plat. I. 622a.).. But 1 Cor. xi. 20 may (in opposition to Wahl and 


1A difference in meaning between an Inf. with the Art. and without it is certainly 
not to be assumed. In German, too, none such exists between das Beten ist segensreich 
and beten ist segensreich. Yet the Inf. becomes more forcible when used as a substantive 
with the Article. 


§ 44, THE INFINITIVE. 321 


Mey.) be further rendered: when ye come together, it is (means) not to eat 
the Lord’s Supper. Totro in resumption of the Gen. abs. is not required. 


3. The Inf. denotes the object (predicate) in all cases when it 
is requisite to complete the meaning of a verb, not only after 
dédew, SvvacGat, Tomar, emiyerpetv, oTrovdafew, Enreiv,! etc., but 
also after verbs of believing, hoping (1 hope to come, etc.), saying, 
asserting. The regular usage need not be proved from the N.T., 
and therefore we have merely to remark, 

a. If, in such case, the Inf. has its own subject different from 
that of the principal verb, such subject with all its attributives is 
put in the accusative (Acc. with Infin.); as, 1 Tim. ii. 8 BovAopae 
mposevyec0as Tovs dvdpas, 2 Cor. xill. 7; Heb. vi. 11 émvOupodpev 


~ 


éxactov vay tHy avTiny évdeikvucbat orrovdny etc., 2 Pet. i. 15; 
1 Cor. vii. 10; Acts xiv. 19 vopicavtes avdtov teOvavat, 2 Cor. xi. 16 
py tis pe dof adpova eivar,? Rom. xv. 5 6 Geos den viv TO avdTdo 
dpovetv, 2 Tim. i. 18. Yet, more frequently we find a complete 
clause with iva after verbs of entreating, commanding, etc. (see 
no. 8), with 67 after verbs of saying, believing (Matt. xx. 10; 
Acts xix. 26; xxi. 29; Rom. iv. 9; viii. 18; Gal. v. 10), and 
always in the N. T. after éA7/fm. If, on the other hand, the Inf. 
and the principal verb have one and the same subject, the quali- 
fying words, if such there be, are subjoined in the Nominative; as, 
Rom. xv. 24 édmifw Svatropevopevos Oedcacbar ipas, 2 Cor. x. 2 
Séowat TO mi) Tapov Oappjoa (Philostr. Apoll. 2, 23), Rom. i. 22; 
Phil. iv. 11; 2 Pet. 1i.14; Jude 3 (Luke i. 97), which is a kind 
of attraction; cf. Kriiger, gramm. Untersuch. HI. 328 ff The 
subject itself is then not repeated ; as, Jas. ii. 14; 1 Cor. vii. 36. 338 
Even in this construction, however, the Accusative (with Inf.) 
may be used, yet only when the subject is repeated in the form of 399 
a pronoun (Hm. Vig. 743), though this does not often occur ; as, Tthed. 
Rom. ii. 19 wérovBas ceavtov odnyov eivar tupr@v, Phil. iii. 13 éyo 
éuavTov ov AoylGowar Kkatecdnpevat, Luke xx. 20 dzroxpwopévovs, 
éavtovs dixaious eivat, Acts xxvi. 2; Rey. ii. 2, 9, perhaps also Eph. 288 
iv. 22 (where, as appears to me, dzrofécOar twas depends on éd.dd- Sth od. 


1 In opposition to Bornem. Schol. p. 40 see /’r. Rom. II. 376; ef. Blume, Lycurg. p 151. 

2 If the governed substantive to which the Inf. refers be in the Dative, the noun 
accompanying the Infin. may also be in the Dative, as in Acts xxvii. 3... 7@ MlavAw 
xpnoduevos erérpeWey mpds Tovs pidous mopevOev Tt emmedrelas Tvxerv, unless the Dative 
here is a correction; see Bornem. On the other hand, we find in Luke i. 75 tov dovvat 
Huty apdBws ex xetpds exOpav puagbéytras Aatpeve adTe etc. 

8 So also inl Tim. i. 3 qopevduevos belongs to mapexddAeoa. If connected with 
mposmetvat it would necessarily, in such proximity, appear in the Accusative. 

41 


822 § 44. THE INFINITIVE. 


xOnre) cf. Her. 2,2; Xen. C. 5,1, 21 vowifouus yap éavrov éovxévar 
etc., 1, 4, 4 (where see Poppo); Anab. 7, 1, 30; Mem. 2, 6, 35; 
Diod. 8.1, 50; Exe. Vat. p. 57; Philostr. Apoll. 1, 12; see Kriger 
as above, 8. 390. Yet in the former passages this construction 
was preferred probably for the sake of antithesis (see Plat. symp. 

_c. 8, and Stallb. in loc., cf. Kriiger as above, 8. 386 f.) or of per- 
spicuity : I deem not that I myself have already etc. For the same 
reason, also, vuds, in Hph. as above, appears to be employed, since 
in vs. 21 another subject, Jesus, has intervened. Later writers, 
however, use this construction even when no antithesis is intended, 
cf. Heinichen, Euseb. H. E. I. 118. 

b. After verbs of saying, (asserting), believing, the Inf. is some- 
times used when the assertion etc. refers not to something that 
really 7s, but to something that should be (such verbs containing 
rather the notion of advice, claim, or command; see also Elmsley, 
Soph. Oed. T. p. 80; Mtth. 1230); as, Acts xxi. 21 Aéyou, 2) 
Tepitéuve avtovs Ta Téxva he said they ought not to circumcise their 
children (he commanded them not to circumcise ete.) xv. 24? 
Tit. ii. 2; Acts xxi. 4 tO TlavAw édeyov wn avaBaivew eis “Iepoc. 
they said to Paul that he should not go up (advised him not to go) 
etc. ef. Kurip. Troad. 724. In all these cases if the statement 
were resolved into direct address the Imperative would be used : 
pn Tmepitéuvete TA Téexva Voy. Compare on this Inf. (which even 
recent writers still explain by supposing the omission of det, see 
in opposition Hm. Vig. 745) Lob. Phryn. p. 753 sqq. ; Bttm. Demosth. 
Mid. p. 181; Engelhardt, Plat. Lach. p. 81; Jen. Lit. Zeit. 1816. 
No. 231; Bhdy. 371. Too many passages, however, of the N. T. 
have been referred to this head. Rom. xiv. 2 05 wév muorever haryeiv 
mdavra means: one man has confidence to eat, and the may is already 
implied in motevew. In xv. 9 do€acar denotes, not what the 
Gentiles should do, but what they actually do; see Fr. In ii. 21f. 
and Eph. iv. 22 f. (see above) the verbs to make known and to be 
instructed, on which the Infinitives depend, inherently denote as 
well what is (and must be believed) as what ought to be (should 
be done) ; and, in the same way, we can say: they preached to 

839 them not to steal; ye have been taught to lay aside. In Acts x. 22 
ypnuatifec Par occurs, which is almost uniformly employed to denote 
the direction of an oracle, a divine injunction. Finally, when 
after verbs of beseeching the Inf. must be rendered by may, such 

303 import is comprehended in the meaning of those verbs in the 

ith ed. context in question, as in 2 Cor. x. 2 déouau 70 wu) Tapwv Oapphras 


fod 


§ 44. THE INFINITIVE. 323 


1) mwerrovlnce, as if, I beseech you in reference to my not being 
bold, that is, to see that I be not bold.1 

c. The Article is put before the Inf. when it is the object, to 
make it a substantive, and thus give it greater prominence (Rost 289 
682) Rom. xiii. 8; xiv. 13 (Luke vii. 21 var.) ; 1 Cor, iv. 6; 2 Cor, ‘thed 
li. 1; viii. 10; Phil. iv. 10; cf. above, 1 (Hm. Soph. Aj. 114) ; 
especially at the beginning of the sentence (Thue. 2,53; Xenoph. 
M. 4, 38, 1),1 Cor. xiv. 89 76 Nadety yAOooats pur) KwAVETE (cf. Soph. 
Phil. 1241 6s ce cwrdvoee 76 Spav). In Phil. ii. 6 ody adprraypov 
nynoato TO eivae ica Oed, the Inf. with the Article is the im- 
mediate object of ay7o., and dpzrayp. is predicate, cf. Thuc. 2, 87 
ovyt Sukaiay éyer Téexpapow TO éexhpoRAvat, and Bhdy. 3816. 


Especially deserving of attention is the use (in Luke peculiarly fre- 
quent) of the Inf. with the Acc. after éyévero, as in Mark ii. 25 éyévero 
maparopevec Oat airov accidit, ut transiret, Acts xvi. 16 éyév. gaidionny twe 
+. aTavTncat Hiv, Xix. 1 éyév. IlatAov dueAPovra ... eAdetv eis "Edecor, iv. 5; 
fepepor, ol, 40; xi. 26; xiv. 1; xxi. 1, 5; xxii.6; xxvii. 44; xxviii. 8, 
17; Luke iii. 21f.; vi. 1,6; xvi. 22 ete? Here the Infinitive clause is 
to be considered as the (extended) subject of éyévero, just as after cvveBy 
(see just below), and in Latin after aequum est, apertum est, etc. (Zumpt, 
Gr. 505): Jesus’ passing by came to pass, etc. The construction is good 
Greek, though the frequent use of éyévero with the Inf, instead of the 
historical tense of the particular verb, is primarily an imitation of the 
Hebrew “m5. In Greek we find a grammatical parallel in ovvéBy riv 
moAw ... eivat Kuptevovoav Diod. 8. 1, 50; 38, 22, 39; Plat. lege. 1, 635 a.; 
Demosth. Polycl. 709 c.; Dion. H. IV. 2089, and frequently, particularly 
in Polybius (also 2 Mace. iii. 2), which occurs also once in Acts xxi. 35, 340 
The germ of the former construction may be seen in 'Theogn. 639 zoAAdke 
... ylyveran etpeiv épy dvdpav, with which Matt. xviii. 13 agrees most 
closely. It appears in its full form in Plat. Phaedr. 242b. 76 daydnov 
TE Kal TO elwHds onpetdv prot ylyvecOau éyévero; and especially in later writers, 
e.g. Codin. p. 138 éyévero tov Baoéa aOvpetv, Epiphan. Monach. ed. 
Dressel p. 16 éyévero aitods dvaBjvat cis “Iepoveadyp. 

The use of the Acc. with the Inf, as has been already remarked, is 
elsewhere in the N.'T. comparatively rare. A clause with ore is more 


1Tn 2 Cor. ii. 7 Sste ... xaploacOa Kal mapaxardéoa the two Infinitives in the same 
way denote what should be, and not what actually takes place. Yet even here det is 
not to be supplied, but the clause with fxaydy extends its influence to these Infinitives : 
The reproach is sufficient, — that you may now, on the contrary, forgive him ete. 

2 The same construction is followed in Acts xxii. 17 eyéverd mot broorpéparte eis 
‘Iepovoariym ... yevéobat we ev éxordoet, where the Infin. might have been joined directly 
to wo bwoor. (accidit mihi), and perhaps would have been joined to it had not the writer 
been led to depart from this construction by the intervention of the Gen. abs. kal mpos~ 
evxouevou mou ey TH lepg. 


394. §44, THE INFINITIVE. 


804 common, quite after the manner of the later (popular) language, which 


ith ed, 


290 


bih ed, 


541 


resolves condensed constructions, and prefers the more circumstantial and 
perspicuous. Hence in Latin e.g. ut where the more ancient language 
employed the Acc. with the Inf.; hence, especially, the quod after verbs 
dicendi and sentiendi which in the period of declining Latin (particularly 
in the extra-Italian provinces) becomes more and more frequent. In Ger- 
man the concise construction, ‘* He said I had come too late,” is resolved 
in the speech of the people into “ He said that I,” etc. Moreover, it must 
not be overlooked that after verbs dicendi the N.T. likes to introduce 
what is said in the oratio recta, according to the graphic idiom of Oriental 
tongues. 


4. The Inf. rendered an unmistakable substantive by means 
of the Article is also employed in the oblique cases. When so 
used it appears in the N.'T. most frequently (far more so: than in 
Greek authors) in the Genitive. Sometimes, | 

a. it deyends on nouns or verbs which elsewhere also govern 
the Genitive: 1 Cor. ix. 6 ov« éyopev éEovalay Tod pi) éepyaverbar ; 
1 Pet. iv. 17 6 xaspos tod apEacOa 76 Kpiwa etc., Acts xiv. 9 rictw 
éxet TOV cwOivat, XX. 3 éyéveTo youn Tod wbTroactpédew, Luke xxiv. 
25 Ppacets 7H Kapdia tov miotevew, Acts xxiii. 15 éromot tod 
avereiv (Sept. Ezek. xxi. 11; 1 Macc. v. 39) ; Luke i. 9 édaye rod 
Ovuuacat (1 Sam. xiv. 47); 2 Cor. i. 8 aste éEarropnOfvar judas Kab 
tod Gv, 1 Cor. xvi. 4 €av 9 afwov Tod Kaye tropevecOar if it be 
worthy of my going also. Cf. also 1 Cor. x. 18; 2 Cor. viii. 11; 
Luke xxii. 6; Phil. iii. 21; Rom. vii. 3; xv. 23; Heb. v. 12; 
Rev. ix. 10 (Sept. Gen. xix. 20; Ruth ii. 10; Neh. x. 29; Judith 
ix. 14, etc.). Sometimes the Codd. vary between the Inf. with tod 
and without it, asin Rev. xiv. 15 (in other passages we find, in 
parallel phrases, sometimes the one and sometimes the other, Heb. 
v.12; 1 Thess. iv. 9). For passages from Greek authors, see 
Georgi, vind. 325 sq.; Mtth. 1256. (In these, several words fre- 
quently intervene between the Article and the Inf.; but this does 
not occur in the N. T., owing to the simplicity of its diction. See 
Demosth. funebr. 153 a., 154 ¢.; Aristocr. 431 a.) 


Under this head come also Luke i. 57 érAnoOyn 6 xpovos trod TeKety 
airy, il. 21, cf. Sept. Gen. xxv. 24; xlvii. 29, as in writing Greek the 
author regarded the Gen. as depending immediately on ypdvos. In Hebrew 
the construction is somewhat different, the Inf. with > being used; see 
Ewald 621. 


Sometimes, b. it is construed with entire clauses, to express 
design (see Valcken. Kurip. Hippol. 48; Ast, Plat. lege. p. 56; 


Be Bi i gi 


§ 44, THE INFINITIVE. 825 


Schaef. Demosth. II. 161; V. 368; Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 338; Mtth. 
1256 f.), where the earlier philologists supplied evexa (cf. Dem. 
funebr. 156 b.) or xapw, as Luke xxiv. 29 eisi\Oev Tod petvar ovv 
avtois, Matt. xxiv. 45 dv catéotncev 6 KUpLos emi THs oiKeTElas avTOD 

Tod Oodvat avdtois THY Tpodny, iii. 13 mapayiverar ert Tov ‘Iopdavnv 
tov BamticOnva, xiii. 83; Luke ii. 27; v. 7; xxi. 22; xxii. 31; 
Betsaies; xxvi. 18; 1 Cor. x. 18; Heb. x.7; Gal. 11. 10; with 305 
a negative in Acts xxi. 12 rapexadodpev ... Tod pn avaBalvew adrov Mh ei. 
els “Iepovoadnu, Jas. v.17; Heb. xi. 5. This construction is espe- 
cially peculiar to Luke (and Paul). But in Greek prose, partic- 
ularly after the time of Demosthenes, parallel instances occur ; 
and this use of the Genitive results so surely from the primary 
import of the case itself (Bhdy. 174 f.), that no one should venture 

to find in it either an ellipsis or a Hebraism. Cf. Xen. C.1, 6, 40 

Tov 5é pnd evTedOev diadevyeww, cKoTro’s TOD yuyvouévou KabiaTns. 
Plat. Gorg. 457 e. hoBodpwar ody dieréyyew oe, uw) we UToAGLyS ov 
Tpos TO Tpayua diroveckodvta Aéyelv, TOU KaTadpaves yevérPar etc. 
Strabo 15,717; Demosth. Phorm. 603 b.; Isocr. Aegin. 932 ; Thue. 291 
1,28 ; 2,22; Heliod. 2, 8,88; 1, 24,46; Dion. H. IV. 2109; shel 
Arrian. Al. 2, 21,13; 3,25, 4 and 28,12. An Inf. with, and 
another without tod, are connected in the same principal clause 

in Luke ii. 22 f. If a subject is expressed in this construction it 

is put in the Acc. Luke vy. 7. 


In Phil. iii. 10 also this Inf. denotes design, where rod yvovar is con- 
nected with vs. 8 and resumes the thought there expressed. (In the 
Sept. this Inf. occurs on every page, cf. Gen. i. 14; xxiv. 21; xxxviii. 9; 
miuigi¢ § Judo. v.16; ix. 15,52; x. 1; xi, 125 xv.12; xvi, 5; xix. 3; 
exe4; Rathi.1,7; ii. 15; iv.10; Neh. i. 6; 1.Sam.ix. 138,14; xv. 27; 
2 Sam. vi. 2; xix. 11; Jonahi. 3; Joel iii. 12; Judith xv. 8; 1 Mace. 
lii. 20, 39, 52; v. 9, 20, 48; vi. 15, 26.) 

Different from this, and more closely connected with the notion of the 
Genitive —- hence to be referred to a. —is the use of the Inf. with rod 
after verbs signifying to be distant from, to restrain or debar from, to 
prevent from; for these verbs contain the inherent power of directly 
governing the Gen., and accordingly are uniformly followed by the Gen. 
of a noun, as Rom. xy. 22 évexomropnv... tod édGetv, Luke iv. 42 kat 
KaTEetxov avtov Tod pH TopeverOau (cf. Isocr. ep. 7, 1012 dwéxew Tod Twas 
amoxreivew, Xen. M. 2,1,16; A. 3, 5,11), with a pleonastic negative 342 
(§ 65) Acts xiv. 18 podis xaréravoay Tovs dxXovs TOD pi) Gvew avTots (cf. 
mavew Twa Twos and ravecba followed by Inf. with rod Diod. Ooo. eae 
Phalar. ep. 35, also novxalew tov rovev Malalas 17, p. 417), xx. 27 ovx 
ireoreAapyy TOD pi) dvayyeiAa buiv macav tiv BovAiy rod Geod (cf. vs. 20), 


826 § 44, THE INFINITIVE. 


1 Pet. iii. 10 ravodtw rv yAOooav abrod did KaKod Kat xEiAy abrod Tod pi) 
Aadjoat ddrov, Luke xxiv. 16 of dfOarmot éxparotvro rod py érvyvavar adrov 
(Xen. Laced. 4, 6), Rom. vi.6; Acts x. 47 (Sus. 9; 3 Esr. ii. 24; v. 69, 
70; Gen. xvi. 2; Act. Thom. § 19; Protev. Jac. 2 etc.). Perhaps also 
pevyew and éxpevyew Tod mornoae is best explained in this way (as pevyew 
twos is used), Xen. A.1, 3,2. Cf. Bhdy. 356; Bttm. exc. I. ad Demosth. 
Mid. p. 143. 
In Rom. i. 24 rapédwxev atrovs 6 beds... eis dxabapciav tod atysacer Oar 
Ta cwpmata adrav év é€avrots the Inf. depends directly on the noun dxafapo., 
206 and there is nothing strange in the omission of ryv before axa. (xv. 23 ; 
ith ed. 1 Cor. ix. 6). The Gen. indicates in what this dxa@. consisted : commisit 
impuritati, quae cernebatur in etc. Fr. with more detail says: virgula 
post dxafapo. collocata ante rod mente repete dxafapoiav. The need of 
this I cannot perceive, as dkafapo. and drag. stand close together, and 
the Gen. may naturally be understood of the sphere of the dxafapo. In 
the same way, too, in Rom. viii. 12 the Inf. rod xara odpxa Gv is to be 
understood as depending on ddetAeryny, in conformity to the regular phrase 
oderernv elvat twos; see Fr. Matt. p. 844. Finally, in Luke i. 73 rod 
dotvat in the same way is most naturally connected with dpxor, ef. Jer. xi. 5. 


It soon became usual, however, to employ this construction more 
loosely, not only a) After verbs involving the idea of (entreaty)! 
292 command,? determination, and thus indirectly of design, Acts xv. 20 
bth ed eoivw ... erictetAat avTois Tod améyeOat to send them the direction 
to abstain, Luke iv. 10 (from the Sept.) rots ayyéXows avtad évTe- 
Netra Tept cod Tod SiapvadEar, Acts xxvii. 1 (where it would be 
forced to connect tod azromeiv with the following vapediSour), ef. 
Ruth ii. 9; 1: Kings i485 5: 1, Mace. 1. 62; i. 315) vy" 2s 
Malal. Chron. 18,458; Ducas p. 201,217, 339, a.; Fabric. Pseudepigr. 

I. 707; Vit. Epiph. p. 346; — but also, b) For epexegesis, where 

an Inf. with or without @ste might have been used, and the im- 
port of the Gen. is lost by blending result and design. Very fre- 
343 quently so in the Sept.; (> with the Inf. denotes both design and 
result ; as to eis with the Inf. see afterwards). In the N.T. com- 
pare Acts vii. 19 ovtTos Katacodicdpevos ... EKAKWOE TOLS TraTépas 
Huov TOD Toe ExOeTa TA Bpédy etc., so that they cast out (ef. 
Thue. 2, 42, and Poppo in loc.), and what is still harsher iii. 12 

@>S TeTolNKoat TOV TepiTatew avTov (1 Kings xvi.19). In both 


1 Cf. Malalas 14, 357 #rhoaro i Aiyourra tov Bacidéa, TOD kaTeAOetv els Tobs 
&iylous témous, 17, 422 muxvas eypahe Tots avtots matpikios Tob pPpovTicOHvat Thy 
médww, 18, 440 Kerevoas TOD S0ORvat avrats xdpw mpoikds dvd Xpuctov Aitpav etkoot etc. 
18, 461. 

2 A construction parallel to reAeverv iva. 


§ 44. THE INFINITIVE. 327 


these passages Fr.’s exposition (Matt. p. 846) is undoubtedly to be 
rejected ; otherwise, many passages of the Sept. would either be 
inexplicable, or would admit of but a very forced interpretation. 
Cf. in particular Josh. xxii. 26 e’rapev troujoat ob Tw Tod oiKodopjcat, 
1 Kings xiii. 16 ov pu) dtvmpat Tod emiotperar (1 Mace. vi. 27), 
xvi. 19 drép THy duaptidy adbtod, ov éroince TOD TOTAL TO TroVNpoY 
etc., Judith xiii. 20 trowjoat cor adta 6 Beds eis UrYpos aiwvov Tod 
emicxeacbai ce ev ayabots, 1 Mace. vi. 59 orjcwpev avdtois Tod 
- Topever Vat Tots vouimous, Joel ii. 21 eueydruve Kvptos TOV ToLAaat. 


How diversified the use of the Inf. with rod in the Sept. is, may be 
seen from the following passages (which can easily be classified and which 
exhibit more or less distinctly the relation denoted by the Genitive) : 
Gen. xxxi. 20; xxxiv. 17; xxxvii. 18; xxxix.10; Exod. ii. 18; vii. 14; 397 
Vili. 29; ix.17; xiv.5; Josh. xxiii. 13; Judg. il. 17, 21, 22; villi. 1; ix. 24, Tih ed, 
Oe pixil 6s xvi. 6;. xviil..9 ; xxi. 3,73 1,Sam. vii. 8; xii. 23; xiv. 34; 
myeros, 1 Kings ii. 3; ii.11;. xii. 24;,xv.21; xvi.7,31; Ps. xxxix.14; 
Jonah i. 4; iii. 4; Mal. ii. 10; 3 Esr. i. 83; iv. 41; v. 67; Judith ii. 13; 

v. 4; vii. 13; Ruthi. 12, 16,18; iii. 3; iv.4,7,15. See also Thilo, Act. 
Thom. p. 20; Tdf. in the Verhandeling. p.141. Cf. Acta apocr. p. 68, 85, 
124, 127, etc. This Infin. is by no means unfrequent in Byzantine authors ; 

as, Malal. 18,452; 18,491; cf. Index to Ducas p. 639, where p. 3820 even 

ei PovAerar Tod elvat didros occurs, cf. p. 189, and p. 203 dtvarar rod 
avrarokpinvat. ‘This use of rod must be recognized as an extravagance of 
declining (Hellenistic) Greek, unless forced interpretations be preferred. 

In Hellenistic writers this construction appears to have become the 
counterpart of the Inf. with > in its manifold relations; and, as generally 293 
takes place in established phrases, they no longer thought of the original ‘th ed. 
Genitive force.’ Analogous to this, moreover, is the Byzantine usage of 
inserting ste before the Inf. after such verbs as PovAcverPat, Soxety ete. ; 

see Index to Malalas, Bonn ed.,? cf. above, no. 3. 

In Rey. xii. 7 éyévero roAeuos ev to odpavd, 6 Mixaajd kat of ayyedot abrod 844 
tov woAcep7oae (where the received text has the correction éroAgunoav) 

a construction occurs which I am unable to explain (Liicke, too, in his 
Einleit. in die Offenbar. Joh. 2 Aufl. S$. 454f,, was unable), unless we 
may consider 6 Muy. kat ot adyyeAot avrod as a parenthesis — awkward to be 
sure — which compelled the writer to resume then the éyév. 7éAeuos in 
the construction tod wodey. FF r.’s exposition (Matt. p. 844) appears to 
me artificial. It would, however, be still more inadmissible to take rod 


1JIn Aesop. 172 de Fur. we find Zueddrev aitds rod karabioa tadtnv, where Schdf. 
thinking solely of the above use of the Genitive Inf. (no. 4 b.) would reject the rod. 

2 Even native Greeks could consider this Inf. after such verbs as divaua, 0€Aw etc. as 
a sort of Genitive, inasmuch as the action expressed by the Inf. always depends on the 
-principal verb as a part depends on the whole. 


328 §44, THE INFINITIVE. 


woXew. for an imitation of the (later) Hebrew pmbn> pugnandum iis erat, 
as Ewald and Ziillig do. For even in the Sept. that construction is in no 
passage rendered so strangely. If éyévero rot woAcujoat alone were the 
reading, there would be a parallel in Acts x. 25 (see just below), and the 
construction would be tolerably explicable. Perhaps, however, the passage 
contains an ancient gloss, or something fell out of the text, at an early 
period, before tod woAeu. There is no plausibility in the proposal of 
Bornem. (Jen. L. Z. 1845, nr. 183) to read: éyévero woA€utos ev TH otpave 
6 Miyayd etc.; and with Hengstenberg boldly to supply had war before 
tov zoA. would be to make John chargeable with a strange latitude in the 
use of words. Acts x. 25 éyévero rod eiseAOety tov Ilérpov, where rod is 
critically established, cannot be compared to the usage mentioned by Gesen. 


308 Lehrgeb. S. 786 f., for according to this it must have run: éyév. 6 IlLérpos 


Tth ed. 


294. 
6th ed, 


345 


rov eiseAGety ; this would be an extreme use of the Inf. with vod! which in 
Luke certainly would be very surprising. Bornem. considers the whole 
clause as spurious,— but the reader is referred to B. himself for the 
manner in which he thinks the text should be made up. Likewise in 
Luke xvii. 1 dvévdexrov éore Tod py eAOeiv Ta oKavdara some Codd. omit 
the rod. Ifitis genuine (both Lchm. and Tdf. have retained it), the Genitive | 
is owing probably to the notion of distance or exclusion implied in dvé- 
dexr., cf. above, no. 4b. The view of Mey. is different. 


5. The Dative of the Inf. denotes the cawse, according ‘to the 
inherent import of that case, see § 31, 6c. (Mtth. 1258; Schaef. 
Demosth. IT. 168; Stallb. Plat.Tim. p. 203), 2 Cor. ii. 13 ov« éoynna 
dverw TO TvevtpaTl fou TO pn evpetv Titov because I found not 
ete. ; cf. Xen. C. 4, 5, 9; Demosth. pac. 21 c., funebr. 156 b., ep. 4 p. 
119b.; Achill. Tat.5, 24; Lucian. abdic. 5; Diog. L. 10, 27; Liban. 
ep.8; Athen. 9,375; Joseph. antt.14,10,1; Simplic. in Epict. enchir. 
c. 88, p. 885; Schweigh. Agath. 5,16. This Inf. is understood by 
some as denoting design in 1 Thess. jii. 3 76 pundeva caiveoOar év 
tats OXipeot in order that no one be shaken etc., as it were ‘ for the 
not being shaken’ (Schott. in loc.), a thought which is subordinate 
to the eds To ornptEav, and therefore was not expressed by a repetition 
of thisform. No such Dat. Infin., however, occurs in Greek ; and 
we must read with good Codd. [Sin. included] 70 pndéva caivec@Oat, 
which has now been received into the text. See above, 1. Remark. 

6. The Infinitive in an oblique case is often joined to a preposition, 
particularly in narration, and rather more frequently in the N. T. 
than in Greek authors. The Article is then never omitted (Hm. 


1 Cf. Acta apocr. p. 66 ws éyéveto Tod TeAdoa abtovs SiddoKoyvras etc. Under this 
head would come also Acts ii. 1 if the reading were kat éyévero év tats nuepars exelvaus 
TOU cuutAnpoda bat. 


§ 44, THE INFINITIVE. 329 


Vig. 702; Krit. 94),! though several words may be inserted between 

the Article and the Inf. (Acts viii. 11; Heb. xi. 8; 1 Pet. iv. 2) ;2 

as, Matt. xili. 25 €v 7@ Kabevdev Tors avOpmrovs while men slept, 
Gal. iv. 18; Luke i. 8; Acts viii. 6 (Xen. Cyr. 1, 4,5; Hiero 1, 
6); il. 26 evrAoyovvTa Yuds Ev TO ATrooTpéedery etc. by turning away, 

in that he turns away (Heb. iii. 12); — Phil. i. 23 émv@uplav éyov 

els TO avarvaat desire towards departing (to depart), Jas. i. 19 
Bpadvs eis TO Aadjoae slow to speak, 1 Cor. x. 6 eds TO pr) eivas 309 
_ mas éruuntas Kaxov to the end that ye be not etc., ix. 18; 2 Cor. ith ed, 
lv. 4; vii. 3; Matt. xxvi. 2; Luke iv. 29; Acts vii. 19 (Xen. C. 

1, 4,5; An. 7, 8, 20) Rom. iv. 18 (see Philippi), 1 Thess. ii. 16 ; 

2 Cor. villi. 6 e¢s TO tapaxarécat jas Titov so that we besought Titus 
Clit., unto the beseeching etc.),® Rom. vii. 5; Heb. xi. 3; Heb. 

ii. 15 61a mavtos tod Gy (through) all their life-time, Phil. i..7 dea 

TO éxew pe €v TH Kapdia vas because I have you etc.,* Acts vill. 11; 
xviii. 2; Heb. vii. 23; x. 2; Luke ii. 4; Mark v. 4 (Xen. C. 1, 4, 

53 Mem. 2,1, 15; Aristot. rhet. 2,18; Pol. 2,5,2); Jas. iv. 15 
avTt Tov rEeyew buds instead of your saying (Xen. Apol. 8; Plat. 295 
rep. 1, 848 a.) ; Matt. vi. 8 7p0 tod buds aithoa before your M4. 
asking, Luke ii. 21; xxii. 15; Acts xxiii. 15 (Zeph. ii. 2; Plato, 
Crit. 48d.) ; Matt. vi. 1 rpos 70 OeaOjvat avtots in order to be 
seen of them, 2 Cor. ili. 138; 1 Thess. ii. 9; Luke xviii. 1 éXeyev 
TapaBodnv 7 pos TO Sev TavToTE TposevyecOas in reference to ete. ; 
Matt. xxvi. 32 wera To éyepOjvai pe after my resurrection, when I 346 
shall have been raised, Luke xii.5; Mark i. 14; Acts vii. 4; xv. 13 
(Herod. 2, 9,6; 8, 5, 10) ; 2 Cor. vil. 12 eive Kev Tov pavepo- 
Ojvat THY oTrovdny Luov (Demosth. fun. 516 a.b.; Plato, Sis. 390 b.; 
D.S. exc. Vat. p. 89. Also inscript. Rosett. 11). 

Paul with peculiar frequency expresses purpose by the Infinitive with 
eis Or mpds, While in such cases the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
prefers a derivative noun ; see Schulz, Hebriierbr. S. 146 ff. But cf. also 
1 Cor. vii. 35. 

1 On the other hand, cf. Theodoret. III. 424 amd kuBevew 7d dvoua, LV. 851 rapa 
ovykAd0eoOa, Psalt. Sal. 4,9. Similar constructions sometimes occur in Greek prose 
(Bhdy. 354; Kiihner U1. 352), but it is uncertain. 

2 Yet not sd many, and not entire clauses even, as frequently in Greek authors 
(Xen. Oec. 138, 6; Cyr. 4, 5,9; 7,5, 42 etc.). The adjuncts, too, are uniformly put 
after the Inf. An Inf. with ap: or wéxps never occurs; with €vexa only once. 

3 The rendering of the Inf. with eis by so that is unobjectionable, as eis is elsewhere 
employed to express alike either aim or result ; cf. Eurip. Bacch. 1161. 

4 Against the other exposition, according to which Suas is taken as the subject, see 
van Hengel in loc. Even where the subject is placed after the Infinitive the proper 


construction is always to be determined by the context, e.g. Simplic. enchir. 13 p. 90 


Sid TO ToAculous pimetoOat Tos cuvyyuuvactds. Cf. Jno. i. 49. 
42 


330 § 44, THE INFINITIVE. 


If in this construction of the Inf. with a prep. a subject be annexed, it 
is put in the Acc. even when it is one and the same with the subject of 
the principal clause ; as, Heb. vii. 24 6 d€ dia 76 pevery atdrov els Tov aidva 

. evel, Luke ii. 4. Predicates also stand then in the Acc.; as, Luke xi. 8 
dwore aito ua TO elvar aitod PiAov; but ef. Xen. Cyr. 1, 4,3 da 7d 
ptrXopabys eivar... aitdos dvypora, Mtth. 1284. Yet the attraction, which 
properly accounts for the Nominative, is also in other circumstances omitted 
in Greek authors. 

The Inf. (without the Article) after zpiv or mplv 7 (Reitz, Lucian. IV. 
501 ed. Lehm.), may be considered as Inf. nominascens; e.g. Jno. iv. 49 
kataBnOe piv arolavety 7d raidlov pov is equivalent to po tov azo. etc. 
The Inf. with this particle is employed not only in connection with a Fut. 

310 or Imperf. in reference to a still impending fact (Mtth. 1200) Matt. xxvi. 34 

ih ed. (Acts ii. 20) ; but also in reference to past events (Xen. C. 3, 3, 60; An. 
1,4,13; Herod. 1, 10,15) in connection with Preterites, Matt.i. 18; Acts 
vil. 2; Jno. vill. 58. As to mpw 7 cf. Her. 2, 2; 4, 167. 


7. The well-known distinction between the Inf. Pres. and Inf. 
Aor., as well as between the Inf. Aor. and Inf. Fut. (Hm. Vig. 
p. 773),! is for the most part very clearly observed in the N. T. 
The Inf. Aorist is employed, 

a. In narration after a Preterite on which it depends (in accord- 
ance with that parity of tenses carefully observed in Greek, see 
Schaef. Demosth. III. 452; Stallb. Phileb. p. 86 and Phaed. p. 32) ; 
as, Mark ii. 4 yaa) Suvapevor trposeyyicat alT® ... aTecTéyacay, Xil. 

296 12 é&jrovy avtov Kpathoat, Vv. 3 ovdeis ndvvato a’tov Sjoat, Luke 

Oth ele xviii. 13 ode HOerEv Od8E TOds dfOarpods Els TOV Ovpavoy érapat, JNO. 

S47 vi. 21; vii. 44;, Matt. 1. 19 ; vill. 29; xiy. 23 ; xvill. 25 7 ee 
xxvi. 40 ; xxvii. 84; Mark vi. 19, 48 ; Luke vi. 48 ; x. 24; xv. 28; 
xix. 27; Actsx.10; xv. 33 xxv. {; Gol.1. 27; Gal. iy. 20 3h 
14; Jude 3. This is quite regular, and requires no proof from 
Greck authors, Mdy. 188. (Sometimes, however, we find the Inf. 
Pres., as in Jno. xvi. 19; Acts xix. 33; Luke vi. 19, and in parallel 
passages the Inf. Pres. is used in Matt. xxiil. 87, while in Luke 
xiii. 34 the Inf. Aor.) Likewise the Inf. Aor. is uniformly con- 
nected with the Imp. Aor. ; as, Matt. vili. 22 ages tovs vexpovs 
Oarrat Tovs éavT@y vexpovs, xiv. 28; Mark vii. 27. 


1 Stallb. Plat. Euthyd. p. 140: Aoristus (Infin.) quia nullam facit significationem 
perpetuitatis et continuationis, prouti vel initium vel progressus vel finis actionis verbo 
expressae spectatur, ita solet usurpari, ut dicatur vel de eo, quod statim et e vestigio 
fit ideoque etiam certo futurum est, vel de re semel tantum eveniente, quae diuturnitatis 
et perpetuitatis cogitationem aut non fert aut certe non requirit, vel denique de re brevi 
et uno veluti temporis ictu peracta. 


§ 44, THE INFINITIVE. B01 


b. After any tense, when an action (rapidly) passing, completed 
at once, or instantly to begin, is to be expressed (Hm. Vig. as 
above); as, Mark xiv. 31 édv pe dé) cvvatrobavety cot, xv. 51 éavtov 
‘ov dvvatat cacat, Matt. xix. 3 ef CEeotw avOpwrw atodvcoa THY 
yuvaica, 1 Cor. xv. 55 det 76 POaptov TodTo évdvcacPar apVapciar. 
eee tit. +, V. 10; ix 27; xii'21>"\Actsiiv.16; Rev. i. 21; 
2 Cor. x. 12; xii.4; 1 Thess. ii.8; Eph. iii. 18. Under this head 
comes also Jno. v. 44 (awucrevew signifies to exercise faith, to become 
a believer). 

e. In particular, after verbs of hoping, promising, commanding, 
wishing, and many others, the Greeks frequently employ the Inf. 
Aor. (Lob. Phryn. p. 751 sq. ; Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 153; Ast, 
Theophr. char. p. 50 sq. ; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 525, 719; Weber, 
Demosth. 343, especially Schlosser, vindic. N. T. locor. adv. Marc- 
land. Hamb. 1742, 4to. p. 20 sqq.), viz. where the action is to 
be designated merely as brought to pass (‘‘ab omni temporis 
definiti conditione libera et immunis,”’ Stallb. Plat. Huthyd. p. 140; 
Weber, Dem. as above) ;! whereas the Inf. Pres. has reference to 
the continuance of the action, or represents it as just now occurring, 
and the Inf. Fut. (after verbs of hoping, promising) represents it as 
not to occur till some future time of indefinite remoteness (Held, 
Plutarch. Timol. p. 215 sq.; cf. Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 158; Pflugk, 
Kur. Heracl. p.54sq.). In the N. T. édvif@ is uniformly followed 
by the Inf. Aor. [since only in Acts xxvi. Tis the Infin. Future 
found as the solitary variant of Cod. B], and none of the examples 
will occasion any difficulty, especially as it often depends upon the 
writer how he will view the action; as, Luke vi. 54 wap’ oy édrrigere 
aToraewv, Phil. ii. 23 todtov érmifw téwrbat, ws dv atridw etc. vs. 
19; 2Jno.12 eramigw yevécOar pos buds, 8 Jno. 14; Acts xxvi.7; 
maomexy. 24: 1 Tim. iii. 14; 1 Cor. xvi. 73. 2 Cor. x. 152 Like- 
Wise evayyéANeoOas is usually construed with the Inf. Aor.; as, 
Mark xiv. 11 érnyyeidato at’To Sodvat, Acts ili.18; vii.5; similarly 
duvupt, Acts li. 80 dpKw apocev adT@ 6 Oeds x KapTrod Tis dadvos 
avutov Kadica ért Tov Opovov; on the other hand, see Inf. Fut. in 


1 Tt is less probable that the Inf. Aor. is intended to designate the action as rapidly 
passing (47m. Soph. Aj. p. 160; Ariig. Dion. H. p. 101, and others) ; this element hardly 
comes to view in the case of a hope or a command. 

2 For an Inf. Perf. after éami(w see 2 Cor. y. 11 éAatiCw Kal évy tails ouverdjoeow duav 
mepavepacbat that I have been made manifest, where édm{(w is not exactly equivalent to 
voulfw, but indicates an impression still requiring confirmation ; but the Inf. Perf. after 
the preceding mepavepducda needs no explanation. Cf. Iliad. 15, 110 8 viv tArrow 
“Apt ye Wiua TeTvX Oa, appropriately quoted by Mey. Further, cf. below (no. 7, end). 


311 
ith el. 


297 
bth ed. 
348 


3382 § 44, THE INFINITIVE. 


Heb. iii. 18; Weber, Demosth. 330. After xeXevew the Inf. Aor. 
is more frequent than the Inf. Pres., the latter being used for the 
most part in reference to a continued action; as, Acts xvi. 22 
é€xérevoy paBdiew, xxili. 35 éxéXevoe abtov év TO Tpaitapiw duddo- 
oec0ar, xxiii. 3; xxv. 21 etc. TTapaxanreiv has the Inf. Aor. in 
Rom. xii. 1; xy. 80; 2 Cor. ii. 8; Eph.iv. i, ete. > but themes 
Pres.in Rom. xvi, 17; 1° Uhess. iv. 10%) es 


This explains also the use of the Inf. Aor. after eroyos and év érotuw 
eéxev (in reference tothe future), as in 2 Cor. x. 6; xii. 14; 1 Pet. i. 5; 
Acts xxi. 13, which is more frequent than the Inf. Pres. The former is 
on the whole rare in Greek authors; yet cf. Dion. H. III. 1536 (Joseph. 
antt. 12,4, 2; 6, 9,2). In the N. T. zpw also is uniformly used with the 
Inf. Aor. ; and when zpiv refers to the future, the Inf. Aor. has the mean- 
ing of the Fut. exact. See Hm. Eurip. Med. p. 348. 
Whether in the N.'T. the Inf. Aor. ever has the force of a Preterite, 
except in the use considered in 7a, is questionable. In Rom. xv. 9 
Ta vn trép eA€ovs doEdaat tov Gedv this might seem at first to be the 
case, as the Inf. depends on A€yw vs. 8 (Mdv. S. 187) and corresponds to 
312 a Perfect yeyevrno@a, while Paul would certainly have expressed continuous 
Mth ed. glorifying by a Present. Probably, however, he merely wished to express 
the act of glorifying without reference to time at all. Likewise in 2 Cor. 
vi. 1 it is not necessary to take déac@a: as a Preterite, as even Mey. does 
[yet not in the later editions], though the connection which Fr. Rom. III. 
241 suggests between vi. 1 and v. 20 is somewhat far-fetched. Probably 
in later Greek the Inf. Perf. quite superseded the Inf. Aor. in such cases, 
as being more expressive ; see p. 334 below, no. 7, end. 


The Inf. Present is generally employed to express an action just 
taking place, or (in itself or its results) continuing, or frequently 
repeated ; as, Jno. ix. 4 éwé det épyablecOa Ta épya Tod wéupavtos 
He, Vii. LT eav tis O€An 70 OeAnwa avTod Totety, Xvi. 12 ov dvvacbe | 
Baordlew apt, iii. 80; Acts xvi. 21; xix. 33; Gal. vi. 13; 1 Cor. 
K¥..20;,1,Tim..ii. 83 Tita. 11¢,, Phila, 12. (bente thas. eae 
general maxims; as, Luke xvi. 13 ovddels olxérns SvvaTat dvai Kuplows 

349 dovaevew, Mark ii. 19; Acts v. 29; Matt. xii. 2,10; Jas. iii. 10, 
etc. Verbs of beleving, are construed with the Inf. Pres. to ex- 
press something which already exists or at least has already com- 
menced (Hm. Soph. Oed. C. 91); as in 1 Cor. vii. 86; Phil. 1. 17 
(16). See Ast, Plat. lege. p. 204. As to xedevew with the Inf. 

' Pres. sce above. 

If this distinction is not always rigorously observed where it 
might be expected, this may be explained by the circumstance 
that in many cases it depends entirely on the writer whether he 


§ 44. THE INFINITIVE. 399 


will represent an action as continuing, or as transient and occupy- 298 
ing only a point of the past (cf. Luke xix.5; Matt. xxii. 17); and bthed 
by the fact that some writers are negligent in such matters. Hence 
in parallel passages we sometimes find the Inf. Aor. and Inf. Pres. 
employed in the same relation; as, Matt. xxiv. 24 cf. Mark xiii. 22; 
Matt. xiii. 3 cf. Luke viii. 5, also Jude 8. The like occurs even 
in the better Greek authors; as, Xen. Cyr. 1, 4,1 e te tod Bacidéws 
SéowrTo, Tovs Taidas éxéXevoy ToD Kupov deicOar dtaTrpatacbat 
adiat* 6 dé Kipos, ef déowto avtod of aides, wept TavTos érroveiTo 
dtat@pattrecOat, 6,1, 45 ty eué edons Twéprrar, 46 éxédevce 
mTépmety, 2,4, 10 ods av tis BovrAnTAL ayabovs cUVEpyovs TOLEtc Oat 
... ods 6€ 67) THY Els TOY TOAEMOV Epywoyv TOLn Tad Vai Tis BovAOLTO 
cuvepyovs mpolvpuovs (cf. Poppo in loc.), Demosth. Timocr. 466 a. 
pn) eEcivat ND o at pndéva (vopov), eav pur) Ev vomobeTats, TOTE S éEetvat 
T@® PBovropevm...AvEetv. Cf. also Arrian. Al. 5, 2,6. We find 
a perceptible distinction, however, between the Inf. Pres. and the 
Inf. Aor. in parallel clauses e.g. in Xen. C. 5, 1, 2. 3; Mem. 1, 1, 
14; Her. 6, 177 etc., see Mtth. 944; Weber, Demosth. 195, 492. 
In the N. T. cf. Matt. xiv. 22 nvayxace tTovs pabntas éuBiHvae eis 
TO mAotov (quickly passing action) Kal mpodyetv (continued) 
avrov etc. Luke xiv. 80; Phil. i. 21. See in general Maetzner, 313 
Antiphon p. 153 sq. Tth ed. 


It appears, on the whole, that where the Inf. Pres. and Inf. Aor. may 
be used indiscriminately, the latter is the more common (as being the less 
definite), particularly after éyw possum (Hm. Eur. suppl. p. 12 praef.), ddvayan, 
duvards cit, OeAw, etc. In the Codd. of Greek authors the Inf. Pres. and 
Inf. Aor. are not unfrequently interchanged, see Xen. C. 2, 2,15; Arrian. 
Al. 4, 6,1; Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 904, 941, ete. So likewise in the N. T., 
cf. Jno. x. 21; Acts xvi. 7; 1 Cor. xiv. 85; 1 Thess. ii. 12. 

The preceding remarks will also account for the use of the Inf. Aor. after 
hypothetical clauses, as in Jno. xxi. 25 drwa, éav ypadynrat cal” ev, ob08 abrov 
Oiar TOV KOTLOV YwpHoar non comprehensurum esse, Where some unneces- 3800 
sarily would insert av; cf. Isocr. Trapez. 862; Demosth. Timoth. 702 a. ; 
Thue. 7, 28; Plat. Protag. 816 c. (in some of which cases, it is true, 
with the Opt. precedes). The expression is more confident (without dv), 
see Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 43; cf. Loésner, obs. p. 162sq. The Inf. Fut. 
(that is, also without av, cf. Hm. partic. av p. 187) is not singular in such 
constructions, Isocr..ep. 3 p. 984. 

As to the construction of péAAew, in particular, with the Inf., that verb 
in Greek authors is most frequently used with the Inf. Fut. (cf also 
Ellendt, Arrian. Al. II. 206 sq.), more rarely with the Inf. Pres. (cf. Dion. 
H.IV. 2226, 8; Arrian, Al. 1, 20,18; 5, 21,1, and Kriiger, Dion. p. 498). 


334 § 44. THE INFINITIVE. 


This, however, is not very surprising as the notion of futurity is already 
implied in péAXew, and the construction is analogous to that of éArilew. 
It is still more rarely used with the Inf. Aor. (Plat. apol. 30 b.; Isocr. 
Callim. p. 908; Thue. 5, 98; Paus. 8, 28,3; Ael. 8,27). This last con- 
struction, indeed, some ancient grammarians (e.g. Phrynich. p. 836) pro- 
nounce to be un-Greek, or rather un-Attic; but they have been thoroughly 


999 confuted with a considerable number of undoubted examples by Béckh, 


6th ed, 


314 
Tth ed, 


801 


Pind. Olymp. 8, 32; Elmsley, Eurip. Heracl. p. 117; Bremi, Lys. p. 745 ff., 
cf. also Hm. Soph. Aj. p. 149. In the N. T. we most frequently find after 
perXew, a. the Inf. Pres. (in the Gospels always) ; only in a few passages, 
b. the Inf. Aor., and that mostly in reference to transient actions, as in 
Rev. ili. 2 peAXer arobavely, iii. 16 pr. euéoat, xii. 4 py. texetv, Gal. ili. 23 rH 
pedrAXdovoay rictw aroxadupOjvar, cf. Rom. viii. 18 (but 1 Pet. v. 1); ¢. more 
rarely the Inf. Fut., viz. in Acts xi. 28 Ayuwov péyav pede eoecGat, xxiv. 15 
avactacw peArev eoecGar vekpov, XXvil. 10 (xxiv. 25). 

The Perfect Inf. is frequently employed, especially in narration, 
to denote a past event in its relation to present time; as, Acts 
xvi. 27 Ewedrev Eavtov avaipeiv, voulSwv éexmedevyévat Tovs Secpiovs 
had fled, and accordingly were away, xxvil. 13 dofavtes THs mpobe- 
cews Kexpatnxévas they had (already) obtained their purpose (and 
were thus in possession of the advantages), viii. 11; xxvii. 9; 
xxvi. 82; Heb. xi. 383, Rom: iv. 1: xv. 3, 193 Mark vee 
xii. 18, 29; 2 Tim. ii. 18 (1 Pet. iv. 3) 2 Pet. 11, 21. “Ii Sayers 
of these passages, after verbs of saying, supposing, thinking, a Greek 
author would perhaps have considered the Inf. Aorist as sufficient, 
Mdy. 187. On. 2 Cor. v. 11 see p. 381 note ?; as to 1 Tim. vi. 17 
see § 40, 4a. p. 273. 

8.That the N. T. writers sometimes (see below, p. 838 sq.) use tva 
where, according to the syntax of (the written) Greek prose, simply 
the Inf. (Pres. or Aor., not the Perf.) should be expected, was 
correctly admitted by the earlier biblical philologists, but has been 
resolutely denied by Fr. (exe. I. ad Matt., yet see Rom. III. 230), 
whom Mey., and almost nobody else hitherto, has followed! In 
such phrases as the following, Matt. iv. 8 edé, wa ot ALOou obrox 
dpto. yévovtat, xvi. 20 Svecteidato Tois pabntais, iva wndevi eir@ow 
etc., and particularly Mark v. 10 vapexddes adtov TodAd, Wa pH 
avtovs atrooteiAn etc., the original meaning of ta might indeed be 
retained, and the phrases rendered : speak (a word of power), to the 


1 On the other hand, T%ttmann, Synon. II. 46 sqq., Wahl (also in the Clay. apoeryph. 
D. 212), and Bretschneider agree with me in the view for which I contend. Besides, 
compare Robinson, a Greek and English Lexicon of the N.'T. (New York, 1850. 8yo.} 
p- 352 sq. 


§ 44. THE INFINITIVE. 335 


end that these stones become bread ; he charged his disciples, to the end 
that they should tell no man; he besought him much, to the end that 
he would not send them away. Still, it would be strange, in the 
first place, that in so many passages, instead of the object of the 
entreaty or of the command, which was to be expected, the design 
should be stated, which in such connections usually merges itself 
in the object. Again, the possibility of the foregoing interpretation 
shows merely how close the affinity is in such a case between the 
design and the object, and how easily therefore va might have come 
to be employed to denote the latter. It is accordingly much simpler 
to believe that the later language, in accordance with its genius, 
resolved the more condensed construction with the Inf. into a sep- 


500 


arate clause and to some extent weakened the import of fa,! just 6th ed. 


as the Romans employed their wé after impero, perswadeo, rogo, inas- 
much as the object of the command, request etc. is always something 
to be accomplished, and therefore the purpose of the person com- 
manding or beseeching.2 Traces of this use of wa already occur 
in writers of the cow. That is to say, in these writers, 

a. “Iva after verbs of desiring and beseeching already begins to 
pass over into a that of the objective clause *; asin Dion. H. I. 215 
denoer Oat Ths Ouyatpos THs ons Euedrov, (va pe Tpos avTnv ayayot, LI. 
666 sq. Kpavy? ... eyévero Kai dejoes... iva pévy ete., Charit. 3, 1 
mapexade. Kadrdpponv tva ait@ tposédOy, Arrian. Hpict. 3, 25, 27 
(see Schaef. Melet. p. 121). In the Hellenistic writers this use is 
quite common; as, 2 Macc. ii. 8; Sir. xxxvil. 15; xxxviil. 14; 
8 Esr. iv. 46 ; Joseph. antt. 12, 38,2; 14, 9,4 ; Ignat. Philad. p. 879; 
Cod. pseudepigr. I. 548, 671, 673, 780; IT. 705; Act. Thom. 10, 
24,26; Acta apocr. p. 36.4 As to ta after verbs of commanding 


1 Weakened, because originally tva was employed only where a direct design was to 
be expressed : I come, in order to help thee. Even worthy to be kept the earlier writers 
express not by fva (Matt. viii. 8; Jno. i. 27; vi. 7, ete.), but by the Inf., perhaps with 
éste (Mtth. 1238). But it does not follow that the weakened ¢va yet coincides altogether 
with ésre. It appears rather to be for the most part still recognizable as an extension 
of eo consilio ut. Hence there is no inconsistency in maintaining the above rule on 
one page, and on the next denying that ta is to be considered as equivalent to &sre 
(see § 53, 10). 

2 Those who vehemently combat this view should at least confess that the use of tva 
in the cases mentioned is not in accordance with the (older) prose diction of the Greeks. 
This is the least requirement of grammatical fairness. 

8 A solitary instance in the earlier authors (Demosth. cor. 335 b.) is af:ody iva. 

* In the Acts Luke has never employed this construction, but after épwray and mrapa- 
Kade always uses the Inf., see viii. 31 ; xi. 23; xvi. 39; xix. 31; xxvii. 33. In the 
Gospel also he has in v. 8 the Inf. with épwray, which occurs also in Jno. iv. 40; 1 Thess. 
v.12. Matthew usually connects mapaxadetv with the direct words of the individual 
entreating. 


315 
Tth ed, 


852 


336 $44, THE INFINITIVE. 


and directing, 1 see Hm. Orph. p. 814; cf. Leo Philos, (in epigram- 
mat. gr. libb. T, Fref. 1600, fol. p. 3) etré xacuyvntn Kpatepovs iva 
Onpas éyeipn, Malal. 3 p. 64; Basilic. I. 147,xerevew and Oeomifew 
iva (8 Esr. vi. 31; Malal. 10 p. 264), évrerpémew va Malal. 10 p. 264, 
dudackew iva Acta Petri et Pauli 7.2. Accordingly in the N. T. also 
we may cease to insist on the strict force of ta, and may render it 
in the following passages simply by that, just as in Latin praecipe, 
rogavit, imploravit wt etc.: Luke x. 40 e¢rov att va pos ovvarti- 
AaPytas Civ. 8; Mark iii. 9; Jno. xi. 57; xili.3845 xv. 17), 2 Cor. 
Xli. 8 Tov KUpiov Tapexadeca iva anooth am é€uod (Mark v. 18; 
vill, 22; Luke viii. 81; 1 Cor.i.10; xvi. 12; 2Cor. ix.5), Mark 
301 Vi. 26 npwra adtov iva 76 dai. €xBaryn (Jno. iv. 47 ; xvii. 15; Luke 
th ed. vii. 836), Luke ix. 40 edenOnv tov pabntov cov iva éxBarwow (xxii. 

32), Phil. i. 9 rposedyowas iva 7 ayarrn buay ... Tepiocevy, 
b. Moreover, #é\ev tva also simply means: will (wish) that,? ef. 
316 Arrian. Ep.1,18,14; Macar. hom. 32,11; Cod. pseudepigr. I. 704; 
ith els Thilo, Apocr. I. 546, 684, 706; Tdf. in the Verhandel. p.141. If 
Matt. vii. 12 dca dv OéryTe va Tordow bpiv means, wish with the 
design that they do, one cannot understand why 6érev wa did not 
become a common construction in the language, since GéXew may 
353 be always so used. And ought Mark vi. 25 @€\o va pos S65 Thy 
keparnv Iwavvov to be rendered: J will in order that thou give me? 
What is the proper object of choice here? Is it not the obtaining 
of John’s head? Why then that circumlocution? And how 
affected it would be to render Mark ix. 30 ov« 7@edev iva tis ya, 
he would not, in order that any one should know! 'That nobody 
should know was precisely his object of choice. Cf. also Acts 
xxvii. 42 Bourn éyéveto, (va Tos Secpotas aToxteivwaot, JNO. 1x. 22 
cuvetéewto ot “Iovdaion iva ... atoovvaywyos yévntat, xii. 10 

1Jn the N. T. xeAevew is never construed with iva. 

2 An analogous construction is the Inf. with rod after verbs of beseeching, exhorting, 
commanding, as in Malal. 17, 422 mruxvas %ypade Tots avtois TarpiKiors TOU ppoytTic Ova 
Thy TéAW, 18, 440 Kededous Tod So0jvat aditais xdpiy mpoikds ava xpvalov AiTpAv elkoor 
etc., 461 Arnce was 6 Shuos Tod axOjvat mdvdnuor, p. 172. Index to Ducas in the Bonn 
ed. p. 639 sq. 

8 Hence the modern Greek circumlocution for the Inf.: 6€Aw va ypddw or ypdiw, 
for ypdpev, ypdva:. In general how far modern Greek goes in its application of the 
particle x4 — which occurs even in the Byzantine writers, e.g. Cananus (cf. also Bois- 
sonade, Anecd. IV. 367) —a few passages from the Orthodox Confession will show: 
p- 20 (ed. Normann) mpérer va moretwuev (p. 24, 30), p. 36 A€yeTat va KaToKG, p. 43 
epoBerro va SovAevy (scrupled cf. Matt. i. 20), p. 113 jumopet va Sex, p. 211 Oéret, ribs 

. va aronThon, p. 235 &xovar xpéos va. vovdeTova1, p. 244 efuebay xpewpetAcrau vad. Sroryévwmev. 
In the above passages, therefore, the modern Greek translator has almost always retained 
the #va in the form vd. 


§ 44, THE INFINITIVE. 337 


(Sir. xliv. 18), and, as an isolated instance of the commence- 
ment of such construction among the Greeks, Teles in Stob. serm. 
95 p. 524, 40 wa Zevs yevntas érrvOupynoe. Under this head comes 
also qrovety iva in Jno. xi. 87; Col. iv. 16; Rev. iii. 9 (analogous 
to movety tod with Inf., see above, no. 4) and Sddvav va in Mark 
x. 37; see Krebs in loc. Lastly, 

c. In Matt. x. 25 apxetov 76 wabnrth, iva yéevntat ws 6 didacKaXos 
avrov, does the interpretation satis sit discipulo non superare magis- 
trum, ut ei possit par esse redditus seem easy and agreeable? Cf. 
Jno. 1. 27; vi. 7; Matt. viii. 8 (Inf. Matt. iii. 11; 1 Cor. xv. 9; 
Luke xv. 19, etc.). In John iv. 34 €uov Bpdpa éotwv, iva row To 
Jena Tod wéwrpavtos pe does the use of iva seem to be completely 
justified by the translation mews victus hoc continetur studio, ut 
Dei satisfaciam voluntati ? In that case crrovdakew iva must have 
been the ordinary and most natural construction. That in Jno. 
xv. 8 the clause with fa cannot express the design with which 
God glorifies himself (Mey.), has already been shown by Liicke ; 
ef. also xvii. 3. To resolve also Matt. xviii. 6 cuudépes atta, wa 
KpewacOn pvros oOviKos ... Kal KataTovTicOA etc. into cum. av’T@ 
KpewacOnvat prov ov.... Wa Katarovt. etc. (by an attraction), 

would, I greatly fear, be generally thought very forced. And 
- Meyer’s opinion is too manifestly a shift. See also Luke xvii. 2; 302 
xi. 50; Jno. xvi. 7; 1 Cor. iv. 2,3; Phil. ii. 2; likewise Luke ‘hed 
i. 48 wodev prot TovTO, iva EXOn HTN Tod Kupiov etc.,! on which 
passage Hm. partic. av p. 135 remarks: fuit haec labantis linguae 
quaedam incuria, ut pro infinitivo ista constructione uteretur. In 
fact, in all these phrases every unprejudiced scholar must perceive 
that the clause with ta contains what, in classical Greek, would 
have been expressed by the simple Inf. (Mtth. 1235), just as in 
Latin (especially of the silver age) aequum est ut, mos est ut, expedit 
ut was employed, where the mere Inf. (as subject) would have 
been sufficient, see Zumpt $8. 522. Sometimes the construction 317 
with ta and that with the Inf. are found connected, as in 1 Cor. ier 
ix. 15 Kadov yap pou padrov arrobaveiv, 4) TO Kavynwd pov iva Tis 
kevoon, Where it is easy to perceive what led the apostle to alter 
the construction ; yet in this passage the iva is not fully estab- 
lished. Thus the traces of the ancient function of the particle of 
design still exhibited in the examples adduced under a., and even 
under b. also, have entirely disappeared in the passages last illus- 


1 Analogous is Arrian. Epictet. 1, 10, 8 mpardy éorw, va eye Kkomnde. Cf. besides, 
Acta apocr. p. 8, 15, 29. 


303 
6th ed, 


355 


338 § 44, THE INFINITIVE. 


trated. And so we see how modern Greck, gradually extending 
the usage, forms every Infin. by means of va. How far popular 
Greck had already declined in the second century, appears from 
many parts of Phryn., and in particular p. 15 sq. Lobeck’s ed. 


What Wyttenbach, Plutarch. Mor. I. 409 Lips. (p. 517 Oxon.), has ad- 
duced from Greek authors to prove the alleged lax use of ta for dsre, is 
not all to the point. In wee va (Plut. apophth. 183 a.) the verb is not 
regarded as supplemented by the clause with wa (by persuasion to effect 
that), but as independent: to speak persuasively iz order that. Ti pou 
TolovTO cuveyvws, Wa TovavTas pe KoAaKevons Tdovats (Plut. fort. Alex. 
p- 333 a.) means: what hast thou discerned in me of the kind in order to 
flatter ? that is, concisely : what could lead you to flatter me? In Ady. 
Colot. p. 1115 a. (240 ed. Tauchn.) zod ris douxyrov 7d ByBdiov eypader, 
WO... py ToLs exelvov ovvTdypacw évrvxyys, What was properly but result is 
attributed to the writer as design ; so we too say: In what desert then 
did he write his book, to keep you from obtaining it? In Liban. decl. 17 
p. 472 ovdcis €or oixérns movnpds, va KpiOy THs Maxeddvey dovAcias aEtos NO 
slave is bad, in order to be judged worthy, — wa is not used for ws after an 
intensive (so bad as to be), but denotes the design which the slaves’ zovnpta 
might have occasioned see § 53, 10, p.461. These passages are not exactly 
parallel to the above constructions from the N.T., but they exhibit the 
gradual transition to them. ‘The phrase dpa ozws does not come under 
this head, and the ozws also after verbs of beseeching, commanding, ete. 
(Matt. viii. 834; ix. 38; Lukevii.3; x.2; xi.37; Acts xxv.3; Philem, 6, 
etc.), which is not uncommon in Greek authors (Schaef. Demosth. III. 
416; Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 439; Holwerda, emendatt. Flay. p. 96 sq.), 
is usually otherwise explained, Mtth. 1231; Rost S. 648. Yet see Titt- 
mann, Synon. II. 59. 

Further, John’s use of ta (cf. Liicke I. 605, II. 632 f., 667 f) deserves 
special attention; in particular where Wa refers complementally to a 
demonstrative pronoun. ‘Two cases are to be distinguished : 

a. 1 Jno. iii. 11 atryn eotiv 7) dyycAla, Wa dyaradpev that we should love, 
vs. 23, cf. vi. 40. Here the telic force of tva is clearly discernible (in the 
maaner stated above p. 334 sq.), as in iv. 84 éuov Bpdua éorw wa row Td 
deAnua tod méuiavtos that I may do (strive to do), vi. 29. In these 
passages nobody will consider (va as equivalent to dr. On the other hand, 

b. Jno. xv. 8 év rovtw edogdcOn 6 raryp pov, iva Kaprov mwodty dépnte is 
certainly equivalent to the construction with the Inf. (év r@ xaprov woddv 


218 hépew tyas). The same applies to xvii. 3 atry éoriy 7) aidvios wy, va 


Tth ed. 


yworkwouw etc.) xv. 13; 1 Jno. iv.17; 3 Jno. 4; like Luke i. 43 woOev pot 
Touro, iva €AOy for ro éAOety 7Hv p. see p. 337. To these may be added the 


1 Schweigh. is wrong in adducing in his Lexic. Epictet. p. 356 the passage from 
Arrian. Epict. 2, 1, 1 as an instance of this construction. 


as Se 


iti) fe 
& 3 . 


§ 44. THE INFINITIVE. 899 


phrase ypetav éyew iva Jno. ii. 25; xvi. 30; 1 Jno. ii. 27 (Ev. apocr. p. 111) 
as well as Jno. xviii. 89. On the other hand, viii. 56 jyadAddcaro wa dy 
is not he rejoiced in order to see; yet still less is it that (ort) he saw, but 
that he should see ;— a thought which, although tva implies the idea of 
purpose (design), could hardly have been expressed in Greek by means 
of va alone. In Jno. xi. 15 wa is simply a particle of design. 

Finally, the construction epyerat or €AnAvbey 7 dpa, va do€acOy xii. 23 ; 
xiii. 1; xvi. 2, 32 means: the time is come tn order to, that is, the time 
appointed for the purpose, that etc. . True, in a Greek author in the same 
sense the Inf. éAnA. 1) wpa (Tov) dofacOnvat, perhaps dsre d0€., would have 
been employed.’ Cf. Ev. apocr. p. 127. 

As to Rom. ix. 6 ody otov dé dre éxrérrwxey 6 doyos Tod Oeod, where a 
clause with orc seems to be used as a periphrasis for the Inf., see § 64, I. 6. 

Note 1. It sometimes appears as if the Inf. Act. were used for the Inf. 
Pass. (d’Orville, Charit. p. 526) e.g. 1 Thess. iv. 9 wept rs pradeAdias od 
xpelav exere ypadetv ipiv (Heb. v. 12), but v. 1 od ypetay exere ipiv 
ypadberd at; cf. also Heb. vi. 6. Both constructions, however, are equally 
proper, (Active, ye have no need to write to you, that is, that I (one) write 
to you; as if: ye have no need of one’s writing etc.). In such connections 
the Inf. Act. is perhaps even more frequent in classical Greek; see 
Elmsley, Eurip. Heracl. p. 151 Lips. ; Jacobs, Philostr. Imagg. 620, also 
as respects xp7 and de? in particular, Weber, Demosth. 306. Cf. especially 


_ Theodoret. II. 1528; IV. 566. 


Note 2. “Or. occurs with the Inf. in Acts xxvii. 10 Oewpd dre pera odAjjs 
fynpias od povov tT. hoptiov kai 7. tAoiov, GAAG Kal TdV YWoydv yudv pédAew 
éxeo Oat tov wAodvv (cf. Xen. Hell. 2, 2,2 cidds, drt, daw av trelovs avAAcyGow 
és 70 aotu, Oarrov rév emiryndeiwy Edeav eccoOa, Cyr. 1, 6,18; 2, 4, 15; 
An. 3,1, 9; Plato, Phaed. 63¢.; Thue. 4, 37), which is a blending of two 
constructions (Hm. Vig. 500): péAXew eoecGon tov wAody and dre pédre 
ércaOar 6 zAods. So especially after verbs sentiendi and dicendi, Schaef. 
ad Bast. ep. crit. p. 36; Ast, Plat. legg. p.479; Wyttenb. Plutarch. Moral. 
J. 54; Boissonade, Philostr. 284 and Aen. Gaz. p. 230; Fritzsche, quaest. 
Lucian. p. 172 sq. This so frequently occurs in the best authors (even 
in short sentences, Arrian. Al. 6, 26, 10), that it almost ceased to be felt 
by the Greeks as an anacoluthon, and to the or: may be attributed merely 
a vis monstrandi, as when it introduces the oratio directa, cf. Klotz, Devar. 
p. 692. (Similarly wa with the Inf. 5 Esr. vi. 31.) 

Note 8. A trace of the Hebrew Inf. Absol. presents itself from the 
Sept. in Matt. xv. 4 Oavdtw reAevtarw (Exod. xix. 12; Num. xxvi. 65), 
and in the diction of the N. T. itself in Rev. ii. 23 droxrevd év Oavarw (cf 
mas mia), and Luke xxii. 15 émOvpia éreOvunoa ete. So frequently in the 


1 The Subjunctive excludes the possibility of taking ta in these cases for where 
(Hoogev. partic. I. 525sq.); as, otherwise, it would be necessary to regard the Subj. Aor, 
as exactly equivalent to the Put. (Lob. Phryn. 723). Yet see Tittmann, Synon. IL. 49 sq. 


304 


Oth ed. 


356 


319 


Th ad. 


340 § 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 


Sept. the Inf, Absol. is expressed by the Ablative of a nomen conjugat. 
annexed to a verb, in a manner not altogether foreign to the Greek idiom 
(§ 54, 3), asin Gen. xl.15; xliii. 2; 1.24; Exod. iii.16; xi. 1; xviii. 18; 
xxi. 20; xxii. 16; xxiii. 24; Lev. xix. 20; Num. xxii. 29 ; Deut. xxiyee 
Zeph. i. 2; Ruthii.11; Judith vi. 4 (test. patr. p. 634). See, in general, 
Thiersch p. 169 sq. How in still other passages the Sept. expresses the 
Inf. Absol., see below, § 45, 8, p. 354. 

Note 4. There is nothing singular in a concurrence of several Infinitives 
in a single sentence, one depending on another, somewhat as in 2 Pet. 
i. 15 orovdaow Exdorote ExELV tas... THY TovTOY prnpnv moLetaOat. 
In. Greek authors three Infinitives not unfrequently occur thus in im- 
mediate succession; Weber, Demosth. 351. 


§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 


1. The verbal character of the Participle appears, partly in its 
directly governing the same case as its verb (Luke ix. 16 AaBov 
Tous aptous, 1 Cor. xv. 57 t@ SiovTs jyiv to vixos, Luke viii. 3 
ex TOV UTapyovT@V avTais, 2 Cor. 1. 23 hedopevos vuav ovK 7rOov, 
1 Cor. vii. 31; Heb. ii. 3; Luke xxi. 4; ix. 32, etc.) ; partly in its 
regularly retaining the element of ¢¢me, which can be done more 

807 completely in Greek than in Latin and German on account of its 
copiousness in participial forms. The temporal force of the parti- 
ciples corresponds, moreover, to the observations made in § 40 upon 
the separate tenses. 

The simple and ordinary use of the Participle is exemplified, 

a. of the Present, in Acts xx. 23 76 vebua Svawapripetal mov 
réyou etc., Rom. vill. 24 érais Bremropévyn ovK Eotwv éAris, 1 Thess. 
ii. 4 0e5 7@ Soxipalovtse tas Kapdias, 1 Pet. 1. T ypuciov Tod amrodXv- 
pévov, Heb. vii. 8 —something now present or uniformly occurring 
at all times (Schoem. Plut. Agid. p. 153; Schaef. Plut. V. 211 sq.). 

b. of the Aorist, in Col. ii. 12 rod Qeod tod éyeipavtos Xpictov 

905 ex Tov vexpov, Rom.v.16 &¢ évos dwaptyncavtos (something that 

bth el. occurred once by itself), Acts ix. 21. 

c. of the Perfect, in Acts xxii. 3 avnp yeyevynpevos ev Tapod, ava- 
TeOpappévos 5é ev TH TodEL TavTH (past facts still operative), Jno. 
xix. 85 0 éwpaxws pepapTupnKer, Matt. xxvii. 37 éréOnxay ... THY 
aitiav avtod yeypaupevnv, Acts xxiii. 3; 1 Pet. i. 285 2 Pet. aes 
Jno. v. 10; vii. 155 Eph. iii. 18. 

d. of the Future (rare in the N. T.) in 1 Cor. xv. 87 0d 76 cdma 


320 7d yevnodpevov omreipers, Viewed from the past, Heb. iii. 5 Mwiojs 
7th ed, 


§ 45, THE PARTICIPLE. 341 


TioToS ... @S Oepdrrwr eis papTiplov TOV AadnOnaopEévwv of those 
things which were to be spoken (revealed) ; cf. Acts vill. 27; xxiv. 11; 
Luke xxii. 49. 

Moreover, the Present Participle is used a) for the Imperf. in 
connection with a past tense; as, Acts xxv. 3 wapexadovy avtov 
aitovpevo. ydpw, Rev. xv. 1 eidov ayyédous érta Exovtas TANYaS, 
Heb. xi. 21 “Iaxw8 aroOvnckav ... nvdroyncev, Acts Vii. 26 whOn 
avTois payopuévois, XVill. 0; xx. 9; xxi. 16; 2 Pet.i. 21; 2 Cor. 
iii. 7 (Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 264) ; also of a continued state of 
things, Acts xix. 24; 1 Pet. iii. 5. b) of that which will imme- 
diately or infallibly occur ; as, Matt. xxvi. 28 70 aiwa 70 rept ToAN@V 
€xyuvopevor, Vi. 30, Tov YOpTov avprov eis KAiBavov Baddopevor, 1 Cor. 
xv. 57; Jas. v. 1. Accordingly, 0 épyowevos used of the Messiah, 
xan, is not venturus, but he that cometh (the coming one), he of 
whom it is firmly believed that he is coming, Matt. xi. 3; Luke 
vii. 19, etc. 


Likewise dy, joined to a Preterite or an adverb of time, is not un- 
frequently an Imperfect Participlé; as, Jno. i. 49; v.13; xi. 31, 49; 
xxi. 11 ; Acts vii. 2; xi. 1; xviii. 24; 1 Cor.i. 28; 2 C. viii. 9; Eph. ii. 13 
vuvi év Xpicr@ “Incod ipets of wore ovres ete. Col. i. 21; 1 Tim. i. 13 pe 
TO mpoTepov ovTa BAdodynpov. Cf. Aristot. rhet. 2, 10, 18, mpos rods 
puptoorov ovras, Lucian. dial. mar. 13, 2 dwé LyAorumets breporryns mpdtepov 858 
ov. But in Jno. iii. 18 dy (see Liicke and BCrus. in loc.) means: who 
(essentially) 7s in heaven, who belongs to heaven.' The same applies to 
i. 18. But ix. 25 dre tupdAds ov apre BA€éxw is probably: L being blind 
(from my infancy), a blind man ; only in so far as a reference to a previous 
condition is included in dpzt, can it perhaps also be translated, whereas I 
was. An undoubted Present occurs in 1 Cor. ix. 19 éXevOepos dv ex wavtwv 
maow éuavtov édovhucu being free (though I am free), I made myself 
servant (the Apostle’s €AevJepia was something permanent). On the other 
hand, in Rey. vii. 2 efdov . . dyyeAov dvaBatvovra (which Eichhorn strangely 
enough declared to be a solecism) J saw him ascend (while he was ascend- 
ing) an Imperf. Part. is quite appropriate, as denoting something not at 
the moment completed. But in xiv. 13 dwoOvjcxovres can only be the 
Present Part. 

In many passages formerly the Present Part. was improperly taken for 


the Future, in most of which the force of the Present is quite sufficient : 805 
in connection, bh ed, 


1°O dy év 7@ odp., in the signification of qui erat in coclo, would nearly coincide in 
sense with 6 é« rod odp. xaraBds. It must here, however, denote something special and 
more emphatic, and a climax in these predicates is not to be overlooked. Yet 6 dy 
does not form a third predicate co-ordinate with the two others, but is, as Liicke cor- 
rectly observes, explanatory of the predicate 6 vids rod avOp. 


321 
7th ed. 


509 


342 § 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 


a. with a Pres. or Imperat., as Rom. xv. 25 zopevopat Sbiakovav Tots 
dyiots (the diaxovety begins simultaneously with the journey), 1 Pet. i. 9 
dyaddaoGe ... koplopevor as receiving (they are so already in the assurance 
of faith), Jas. ii. 9. As to 2 Pet. ii. 9 see Huther. 

b. with an Aor. (Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 234), as 2 Pet. ii. 4 qapédwxer «is 
plow Typovpevous as those who are kept (contemplated from a present point 
of view), Acts xxi. 2 etpdvres wAotov diarepdv eis Powixyny on her passage 
to, bound for (Xen. Eph. 3, 6 in.), Luke ii. 45 tréotpeway «is ‘Iepove. dva- 
{nrovvres airov seeking him (which began already on the way back), Mark 
vill. 11; x..2 (Fut. Part. in reference to an action only purposed, Acts 
KKLV. 7p AV 1S), 

c. with a Perf. as Acts xv. 27 dmecradxapev “Iovday Kat Sidav... 
arayyé\Novras Ta atta announcing, with the announcement (they assumed 
the character of announcers simultaneously with their entrance on their 
journey), 1 Cor. ii. 1; Demosth. Dionys. 739¢.; Pol. 28, 10,7. In2 Pet. 
il. 11 tovtwy zavrwv Avopéevwv means, since all these things are dissolving, 
that is, are by their nature destined for dissolution ; the doom of dissolution 
is already as it were inherent in them. Av@ycopévwv would express only 
mere futurity: as their dissolution will at some time take place. The 
Apostolic (Pauline) terms of drodAvpevot, ot cwldpevoe (subst.) denote : 
those who are perishing, those who are becoming saved etc., not merely at 
some future time but already, inasmuch as they refused to believe and 
therefore are the prey of eternal death. As to Acts xxi. 3, see no. 5. 

d. with a Conjunct. exhortat., as Heb. xiii. 13 éfepywpeGa ... rov dverdurpov 
aitod dépovres, Where the bearing etc. is annexed directly to the é&epy., 
whereas the Fut. Part. would have removed it to some indefinite and 
distant time. Cf. also 1 Cor. iv. 14. 

Still less can the Pres. Part. take the place of the Aorist. In 2 Cor. x. 14 
od yap os py eduxvovpevot els bas trepextetvopev Eavtovs means: as though 
we reached not unto you (which, however, is the case). In 2 Pet. ii. 18 
éropevyovtas, Which Lchm. has already adopted, denotes that the escaping 
has only just begun; such persons are most liable to be misled. As to 
Eph. ii. 21 and iv. 22, see Meyer. 


The Aorist Part., in the course of a narration, expresses either 
a simultancous action (Krii. 155), Acts 1. 24 mposevEapevos eirov 
praying they said (the prayer follows), Rom. iv. 20; Eph. i. 9; 
Col. ii. 18; Phil. ii. 7; 2 Pet. ii. 5; or a previously past action, 
where we should expect the Plup., Matt. xxii. 25 6 apéros yapioas 
éreacuTnoe, Acts v. 10; xiii. 51; 2 Pet. 11.4; Eph. 1.4 fy qe 
If the principal verb refers to something future, the Aor. Part. is 
equivalent to the Latin Fut. exact.; as, 1 Pet. ii, 12 ba... de Tov 


~*~ - \ ‘ eee . ~ 
Karov épyov érortevcartes Sofacwaw Tov Oeor, ili. 2; Eph. iv. 25 


arrobépevot TO Wreddos Aadeire adijPevav, Matt. xiii. 13; Acts xxiv. 25; 


§ 45, THE PARTICIPLE. 343 


Rom. xv. 28; Heb.iv.38; Hm. Vig. 774. Likewise the Perf. Part. 
has sometimes in narration the sense of a Plup.; as, Jno. ii. 9 of 
dudkovor HOeLcav ot nvTAnKOTEs, Acts XVill. 2 ebpwv ‘Iovdaior ... mpos- 
paras éknrvOora amo tT. Iradias, Heb. ii. 9; Rev. ix. 1. 


The Aor. Part. never stands for the Fut. Part.:—not in Jno. xi. 2 
(where the Evangelist alludes to an event long past, which he narrates 
for the first time in chap. xii.); also not in Heb. ii. 10, where dyayovra 307 
refers to Christ sojourning in the flesh, who even while on earth led many 6th ed. 
to glory (a work which began with his public ministry). As to Heb. 322 
ix. 12 see below, 6. It is a misuse of parallel passages to translate Mark ith ed. 
xvi. 2 dvareiAavros Tov 7Atov: as the sun rose (so Ebrard still), because 
Jno. xx. 1, cf. Luke xxiv. 1, has oxorias ert ovons. Such minute discrep- 
ancies in the gospels one must have the courage to tolerate. As to Jno. 
vi. 33, 50 dpros 6 kataBaivwv ék Tod otpavod, compared with dpros 6 kataBas 
€k Tov ovpavov in verses 41, 51, see Liicke. Neither is the Aor. Part. used 
for the Perf. Part. in 1 Pet. i. 13. 

The Perf. Pass. Part. careyvwopevos in Gal. ii. 11 is erroneously rendered 360 
reprehendendus. According to grammar and the context it means blamed, 
see Mey. Likewise in Rev. xxi. 8 éBdeAvypévos is abominated. On the 
other hand, in Heb. xii. 18 the Pres. Part. WyAaddpevov denotes touchable, 
for what 7s touched has the property of touchableness, as 7a BAeropeva 
means things visible. Cf. Kritz, Sallust. II. 401 sq. | 

Aor. and Perf. Participles are connected and the distinction between 
them maintained: 2 Cor. xii. 21 rév zpohpaprnkdétwv kK. py) peTavonordyTwr, 
1 Pet. ii. 10 of od« HAEnpEvor viv de €XenOEevres (Sept.) — the former denoting 
a state, the latter a fact. As tol Jno. v.18 see Liicke; cf. Ellendt, Arrian. 
Al. I. 129. The connection of the Pres. Part. and the Aor., as in Jno. 
xxi.24; Heb. vi. 7,10, or of the Perf. Part. and the Pres., as in Coll. ii. 7, 
in a single proposition, hardly requires to be mentioned. 


2. As respects grammatical construction, the Participle is used 
either a. as a complement to the principal clause, as in Matt. : 
xix. 22 amfrOev Avrrovpevos (Rost 701); or b. it forms for the 
sake of periodic compactness a secondary clause, and can be re- 
solved by a relative or by a conjunction (Rost 703; Mtth. 1311 ff.), 
Jno. xv. 2 wav KrAnpa un dépov xaptrov which does not bear fruit, 
Rom. xvi. 1 cuvietnus BoiBnv, odicav dudxovov, Luke xvi. 14 ete. ; 
Rom. ii. 27 7) axpoBvotia Tov vopov Terodaa if it (thereby, that it) 
Juljils, Acts v. 4 ody pévov coi Eueve ; when it remained (unsold), 
did it not remain thine? Rom. vii. 3; 2 Pet. i. 4; 1 Tim. iv. 4 
(Xen. M.1,4,14; 2,3,9; Plat. Symp. 208 d.; Schaef. Melet. 
p- 07; Mtth. 1314), Acts iv. 21 drédveav adrods pndev evpioxovTes 
etc. because they found nothing, 1 Cor. xi. 29; Heb. vi. 6 Jude 5; 


344 $45. THE PARTICIPLE. 


Jas. li. 25), Xen. M. 1, 2, 22; Lucian. dial. m.-27,8; Rom. i) 32 
oitwes TO Sixaiwpa Tod Oeod éruyvovtes ov povov etc. though they 
knew etc. (had become well aware), 1 Cor. ix. 19; 1 Thess. ii. 6; 
Jas. ili. 4ete.; cf. Xen. M.3,10,13; Philostr. Apoll. 2,25; Lucian. 
dial. m. 26,1. Most frequently in narration the Participle is to 
be resolved by a particle of time ; as, 2 Pet. ii. 5 dySoov Noe... 
épvrafev, Katakdvopov Koopw eraéas, as (when) he brought upon 
the world, Luke ii. 45 un evpovtes tréotpevav after they had not 
found, Phil. ii.19; Actsiv. 18 carécavtes adtovs wapryyethav, Matt. 
ii. 3; Acts xxi. 28 éwéBadov er’ avtov tas yeipas Kpafovtes while 
they cried etc., Rom. iv. 20 éveduvvaywOn 7H tiote dodvs dd€av TA 
Jew ete. 


361 When Participles are used limitatively (although) , this import is often 

808 indicated by xairot or xairep prefixed, as in Phil. iii. 4; Heb. iv. 3; v. 8; 

6th od. vii» 5; 2 Pet. i.12; cf. Ken. C. 4, 5, 82; Plat. Protag. 3818 b.; Diod. S. 

323 3,7; 17,39. Sometimes this meaning is made prominent by an antithetical 

ie dps (Krii. 202), 1 Cor. xiv. 7 duws 7a ayvxa povny diddvta ... €av diactoAnv 
py 60, Tas yrwoOyoerat TO avdAovpevoy etc. things without life, although 
giving out sound, will nevertheless not be understood, unless ete. 


3. The connecting of two or more Participles in different rela- 
tions (co-ordinate or subordinate one to another) without the 
copula «ai with one and the same principal verb, is particularly 
frequent in the narrative style. This takes place not only, 

a. When one Participle precedes, and another follows, the finite 
verb, as Luke iv. 35 pixrav avr 70 Saumovioy ets wécov €EHAOEV amr 
avTov, pnoev BrNavav avtov throwing him down (after he had 
thrown him down), the evil spirit came out of hin without doing 
him any harm, x. 80; Acts xiv. 19; xv. 24; xvi. 23; Mark vi. 2; 
2 Cor. vii.1; Tit. ii.12f.; Heb. vi.6; x.12f; 2 Pet. ii. 19 CLucian. 
Philops. 24, and Peregr. 25); but more frequently, 

b. When the Participles immediately follow one another without 
a copula, as Matt. xxviii. 2 dyyedos xuplov KataBas €& ovpavod, 
TposerOwpv amextdce Tov Gov etc., Acts v. 5 axovwv *Avavias 
TOUS AOyous ToUTOUS, Tecwy e&eWvée, Luke ix. 16 AaSwy Tous sTévTE 
apTous ..., avaPrépas eis TOV ovpavoyv evroynoev, 1 Cor. xi. 4 Tas 
avijp TMposevxyopevos 1) TpopynTevav Kata Keparhs eEywv, KaTatoybveEr 
etc. every man that prayeth or prophesieth with his head covered 
etc., Luke vil. 87 f.; xvi.23; xxiii.48; Acts xiv.14; xxi.2; xxv. 6; 
Mark i. 41; v.25-27; vili.6; Col.i. 3 f. evyapsototper ... mposevyo- 
pevot... axkovoartes while we pray,... since (after) we heard, 1 Thess. 
if 2.f.; Heb apaeexiets: xin. 391 Corixy.'58 5 Jno, xiii see 


§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 345 


ii. 18; Phil. ii. 7; Philem. 4; Jude 20, ete. Nothing is more fre- 
quent in Greek authors, cf. Xen. Hell. 1, 6,8; Cyr. 4, 6,4; Plato, 
rep. 2, 366a.; Gorg.471b.; Strabo 3,165; Lucian. asin. 18; Alex. 
19; Xen. Eph. 3,5; Alciphr. 3,43 in.; Arrian. Al. 8, 30,7; see 
Heindorf, Plat. Protag. p. 562; Hm. Eurip. Io p. 842; Stallb. 
Plat. Phileb. § 32, and Plat. Kuthyphr. p. 27; Apol. p. 46 sq. ; 
Boisson. Aristaenet. p. 257 ; Jacob ad Lucian. Tox. p. 43; Ellendt, 
Arrian. Al. II. 322, etc. (In several passages sometimes a smaller 
and sometimes a greater number of Codd. have the copula «ad, as 
in Acts ix. 40; Mark xiv. 22, etc.) 


The Participles stand otherwise related to each other in Luke ii. 12 
cipjoere Bpédos éorapyaywpevov Keipevov ev parvy ye shall find a child 362 
swaddled, lying in a manger, where the first Part. takes the place of an 
adjective. 


4. When the Participle is employed merely as a complement or 
predicate, it fills sometimes the office discharged in Latin and Ger- 
man by the Inf. (Rost 694 ff), viz. in the well-known phrases: 

a. Acts v.42 ov érravovto diddoKovtes (xiii. 10; Heb. x.2; Rev. 

iv. 8), Acts xii. 16 évéweve xpovwv, Luke vii. 45 (2 Mace. vy. 27), 

2 Pet. i. 19 6 Karas rrovetre mposéyovtes, Acts x. 83; xv. 29; Phil. 
_iv.14; 3Jno. 6 (Plato, symp. 174e.; Phaed. 60¢.; Her. 5, 24, 26), 309 
2 Pet. ii.10; 2Thess.iii.13; b. Mark xvi.5 eiSov veavicxov xabrjuevor, iin ef 
Actsii. 11 dxovopev Nadovvtwv adrav, vii. 12; Mark xiv. 58. Logi- aos 
cally, tht Participle is in these instances as appropriate, at least, 
as the Infinitive; the Greeks used the former to mark a nice 
distinction which other nations failed to note. Ov« émavovto 
didacKorTes is, teaching (or, as teachers) they did not cease ;1 eidov 
KaOnuevov they saw him (as one) sitting. The Part. denotes an 
action or a state already existing, not first occasioned or produced 

by the principal verb ; see, in general, Mtth. 1228; Krii. 191 ff. 

We further specify the following instances as of less frequent 
occurrence: Under a. 1 Cor. xiv. 18 evyapicté TO Oe6 TavTov 
DOV Padrov YAoooais ANar@y (rec.) * that I speak (as one .. 


1 Jt would make no essential difference to regard this use of the Part. in the nomina- 
tive, with G. 7. A. Kriiger (Untersuch. aus dem Gebiete der lat. Sprachl. III. 356 ff., 
404 ff.), as attraction. Further, cf. Hm. emend. rat. p. 146 f. 

2 More precise distinctions on this head as to Greek are laid down by Weller, Bemer- 
kungen zur gr. Syntax. Meiningen, 1845. 4to. 

8 Lchm. and Tdf. on the authority of many uncial Codd. [Sin. also] give Aare ; 
then we have two unconnected clauses side by side: I thank God, I speak more than you 
all (for that I speak more than you all), ef. Bornem. Xen. cony. p. 71. The Cod. Alex. 
omits both AaA@y and Aare. 

At 


346 § 45, THE PARTICIPLE. 


speaking), cf. Her. 9,79; Acts xvi. 34 jryadXudcato TeTLoTEVKOS 
7 Oem (Kurip. Hipp. 8; Soph. Phil. 882; Lucian. paras. 3; fug. 
12; Dion. H. IV. 2238) ; but Rom. vii. 18 does not come under 
this head, see Ruck. cf. Heusing. Plut. paedag. p. 19; Under b. 
Luke viii. 46 éyo éyvov divayw éEeXnrAvOviav (Thue. 1, 25 
yvovtes ... ovdeniav opiow ao Kepkvpas tiwwplav odcav, Xen. 


C. 1,4, 7, see Monk, Eurip. Hipp. 804 and Alcest. 152),1 Heb. 


363 xili. 23 yuweoxere tov adehpov Ticbeov atorkedupévov ye know. 


310 


bth ed. 


B25 
Tth ed. 


that ...s set at liberty, Acts xxiv. 10 é&& wodr\av érdv dvTa ce 
Kpitny T® EOver ToUT@ émiatapmevos, cf. Demosth. ep. 4 p. 128 ete. 
(but in Luke iv. 41 #decav tov Xpiotov adrov eivar, where also 
in Greek prose the Participle would probably have been employed, 
cf. Mehlhorn in Allg. L. Z. 1833, no. 110, yet see Elmsley, Eurip. 
Med. 580), 2 Jno. 7 of uy Gporoyotvtes Xpiotov épyopevov eis Tov 
koopov, 1 Jno. iv. 2 wvedpa 6 oporoye? "Inoody Xpictov év capki 
érnrv0ora.2 As to verbs dicendi with a Part. see Mtth. 1289; 
Jacobs, Aclian. anim. 11.109. In Greek prose the verb aioyvver@at 
also is especially so used, e.g. Xen. C. 3, 2, 16 aicyvvoipe? dv cou 
py aT oSLOovTEs, O, 1, 21 aicyvvouat eywv, Mem. 2, 6,39; Diog. 
L. 6, 8; Liban. oratt. p.525b. Yet just here we see with what 
propriety the Participle is chosen in the cases just noted. For this 
verb is also construed in Greek authors with the Inf. But there 
is an essential difference between the two constructions; see Poppo, 
Xen. Cyr. p. 286 sq.2 The Part. is used only when a person is now 
doing (or has done) something of which he (at the moment of 
acting) is ashamed; but the Inf., when shame in view of something 
to be done (but not yet actually performed) is to be expressed 
(cf. e.g. Isocr. ad Philipp. p. 224, and big. p. 842; Xen. M. 3, 7,5). 
Luke, observing this distinction, has written correctly xvi. 3 
érraiteitv alayuvouat to beg I am ashamed (Sir. iv. 26; Sus. 11) ; 
had the speaker already begun to beg, érautay atcyvvoyat must 
have been used. “Apyouar is uniformly in the N. T., and commonly 
in Greek authors, construed with the Infin., as he began speaking 
is less appropriate than he continued speaking. Yet see Rost 698. 

1 Eph. iii. 19 yovar tiv bwepBadrAAovaeay Tis yvdoews Gydrny TOD Xpiotod cannot 
be referred to this head, as many expositors refer it; for the Part., by its position between 
the article and substantive, is too clearly marked as an adjective. For another reason, 
also, Phil. ii. 28 va iSévres abtobv mdAw xapjTe must not be referred to the above 
construction. The sense is: that ye, beholding him, may again rejoice. 

2 The passage of Isocr. Paneg. c. 8, usually adduced as a parallel (even still by ith. 
1289), was corrected by Hier. Wolf, cf. Baiter in loc. Weber, Demosth. p. 278, discusses 


another matter. 
8 With wvvédvoucn both constructions coincide ; see Hilendt, Arrian. Al. J. 145. 


§ 45, THE PARTICIPLE. 347 


*Axovew, which also is occasionally construed with a predicative Part., 
and that not merely in the literal sense of immediate hearing as in Rev. 
v. 13; Acts ii. 11, but also in that of learning, being informed (through 
others) as in Luke iv. 23; Acts vil. 12; 2 Thess. ili. 11 dxovopev twas 
mepirarovvras etc., 3 Jno. 4 (Xen. C. 2, 4, 12),1 is in the latter sense fre- 
quently construed with oz, once [by Paul] with the Acc. with the Inf, 
1 Cor. xi. 18 dkovw ocxiopara ev ipiv imdapyew (tmapxovta), [once also by 
John, xii. 18 yxoveay rovto abrov memouKeva 7d onpetov]; cf. Xen. C. 1, 
' 8,1; 4,16. The construction is different in Eph. iv. 22 if dofécOa 
byads ... Tov Tadaiov avOpwrov depends on 7Kovoate or edvdayOyre in ys. 21 
(that ye must put off); see § 44, 3, p. 822. 

The use of the Part. examined in this section is in Greek authors, even 
prose writers, much more diversified than in the N. T. (see Jacobs, Anthol. 
III. 235, and Achill. Tat. p. 828; Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 500; Schaef. Eurip. 
Hee. p. 31). The construction of raveofar with the Inf. is disapproved 
even by ancient grammarians, though erroneously, see Schaef. Apoll. Rhod. 
II. 223 ; Ast, Theophr. char. p. 223 sq. 

Also in 1 Tim. vy. 13 dpa dé Kai dpyat pavOdvovor reprepxdpevat the 
Part. is, by nearly all recent expositors thought to be used for the Inf.: 
they learn (accustom themselves) (to be) going about idle ete. This gives 
a suitable meaning. But in all cases where the Part. joined to pavOavew 
refers to the subject, that verb signifies to perceive, comprehend, observe, 
remark something which is just taking place, as in Her. 3, 1 duaBeBrAnpeévos 
t7d “Apdcwos od pavOavers (see Valcken. in loc.), Soph. Antig. 532; Aesch. 
Prom. 62; Thuc. 6, 39; Plut. paed. 8,12; Dion. H. IV. 2238; Lucian. 
dial. d. 16, 2;* but in the sense of learn it is used with the Inf., Phil. iv. 11 
also 1 Tim. v. 4;® Mtth. 1228. The preceding construction, then, must 
have been incorrectly extended beyond the proper bounds. Perhaps, 
however, pav@. is to be connected with dpyai, and zeprepyopevar to be taken 
as a proper Part. (they learn idleness, going about ete.). “Apyai px. would 
then be a concise expression, like what sometimes occurs efsewhere also 
with an adjective (Plat. Euthyd. 276 b. ot dmabets dpa codot pavOavovow, 
and more frequently duWacKev twa codov), which does not like the Part. 
include the notion of tense or mood. This exposition, which Beza, 
Piscator, and others adopted and which Huther has recently approved, is 
supported by this, that in the sequel dpyaé is repeated as the leading word, 
and to the climax PAvapor kai replepyou a Part. is likewise annexed, Aadotoat 
TO py O€ovTa. 

1 Cf. fost, in his griech. Worterb. I. 143. 

2 In Xen. C. 6, 2, 29 ews dy nddwper bdpomdra yevduevor (a passage which would not 
be altogether decisive), AdOwpey was long ago substituted for uddwuer. 

8 Matthies has passed over the grammatical difficulty in silence. Leo, after Casaubon. 
ad Athen. p. 452, would render pavOdvouci by solent; but he has not observed that this 
meaning belongs only to the Preterite. . 

4 Under this head comes also Dio Chr. 55, 558.6 Swxpdrns Ort wey mais dy euavdave 
ArOokdos Thy TOD maTpds Téxvny, axnndaper (Socrates learned as stone-cutter etc.). 


364 


326 
Tth ed, 
se 
6th ed, 


860 


321 
7th ed, 


312 
Gth ed, 


348 § 45, THE PARTICIPLE. 


A verb of the kind specified under a. is once construed with an Adjec- 
tive — which cannot be thought strange, Acts xxvii. 83 reaoapesxawWexdryy 
OHNLEPoV Hepav mposdokGvres, AouToL (dvTes) StateActre, cf. Xen. C. 1, 
9,10 dvaywvoros duarede?, Hell. 2, 3, 25. 

Some erroneously think the Part. used for the Inf. in 1 Tim. i. 12 morov 
pe yynoato Géwevos eis duaxoviav. The meaning is: he counted me faith- 
Sul, in that he appointed me to the ministry (by that very act showing that 
he counted me faithful). In another sense, indeed, OécGar eis dvaxoviav 
might also have been employed. 


5. Present participles are frequently used (in the narrative 
style) with the verb etvas, and in particular with jv or joav.(yet 
also with the Fut.) : — sometimes, as it seems, simply for the cor- 
responding person of their finite verb (Aristot. metaph. 4, 7; 
Bhdy. 834),! as in Mark xiii. 25 of aorépes tod otpavod Ecovtat 
wimatovtTes (where immediately follows, as a parallel clause, «al 
ai Suvdpers at €v Tois ovpavots cadevOjcovtTat, — Matt. has wecobytat), 
Jas.1.17 wav depnpa Tédevov avwlev éott KataBaivor etc., Luke v.1; 
Acts il. 2; sometimes, and indeed more frequently, to express con- 
tinuance (rather a state than an act),? which might also be indi- 
cated, though less sensibly in reference to the past, by the form of 
the Imperfect ® (cf. Beza ad Matt. vii. 29), as Mark xv. 43 y apos- 
deyopevos THY Bacirelav Tod Oeod (Luke xxiii. 51), Acts viii. 28 Fv 
Te UTooTpédav Kal KaOnwevos él TOD appatos avTov (an Imperf. 
immediately follows), i.10; 11.42; viii. 18; x. 24; Matt. vii. 29; 
Mark ix.4; xiv. 54; Luke iv. 31; v.10; vi.12; xxiv.13. Hence 
this construction is used especially where there is a reference to 
some other circumstance, as in Luke xxiv. 32 7) capdla nav Kato- 
Lévy Hv év Huiv ws éXade etc., or to what is customary, as in Mark 
il. 18 soav%oi pabntai Iwavvov ... vnotevovtes (they used to fast), 
to which exposition Mey. without reason objects. Also in Luke 
xxl. 24 ‘Iepovcariw éotar tatovpévn wo éOvav duration seems 
intended to be expressed, while the two Futures preceding, vrecodp- 
Tat and aiyuwarwticOyncovtat, denote transient occurrences, cf. Matt. 
xxiy. 9. In other passages efvau is not the mere auxiliary verb: 
Mark x. 82 sjcav év Th 08d avaBatvortes eis “Iepoc. they happened 
to be on the way (cf. vs. 17), going up to Jerusalem (Lucian. 


1 In some tenses (as the Perf. and Plup. Pass. Plur.) this cireumlocution, as is well 
known, has become predominant and figures in the paradigm of the verb. 

* What Stallb. Plat. rep. II. 34 says of the distinction between this construction and 
the finite verb amounts to this. 

8 It is a characteristic of popular diction to expand concise expressions for the sake 
of greater clearness or force; see § 44, 3, p. 324. 


§ 45, THE PARTICIPLE. 849 


dial. mar. 6, 2), v. 5, 11 (Hm. Soph. Philoct. p. 219) ii. 6; Luke 366 
ii. 8; xxiv. 538; Mark xiv. 4 jody twes ayavaxtodytes there were 
some (present) who had indignation; or the Part. has assumed 
rather the nature of an adjective, as in Matt. xix. 22 jv éyov 
xtTnpwata he was possessed of property, ix. 36; Luke i. 20 (ef. Stallb. 
Plat. rep. Il. 54). Perhaps also the verbal idea was sometimes 
dissected into a Part. and Subst. verb in order to give it in the 
form of a noun more prominence (Mdv. 204), 2 Cor. v. 19 (see 
Mey.),1 Cor. xiv. 9; Col. ii. 23. In Luke vii. 8 éyo avOpwrros eius 
tro é£ovciav tacodpevos the Part. appears to be not directly de- 
pendent on eva, but an epithet belonging to a substantive. In - 
Jno. i. 9 Hv... épxopevov are not to be taken together, but épyo- 
pevoy belongs as an attributive to av@pwirov, see Meyer. Moreover, 
this use of the Pres. Part. is not uncommon in Greek authors ; 
and they (particularly Herodot.) employ thus the other Participles 
also besides the Pres., cf. Eurip. Here. fur. 312 sq. e¢ wév cbevovtav 
TOV euav Bpaxyiovar hv Tis o UBpifov, Her. 3,99 aap vedpevos 
éotw, Xen. An. 2, 2,13 Hv 1) ctatnyia ovdéy ddXo Suvapyévn, Herod. 

1, 3,12 cparyoas Mw Tots SrXous (where rposnydayero precedes), 
Lucian. eunuch. 2 ducactat Wndodopodytes Aoav ot apictor. See 
Reiz, Lucian. VI. 537 Lehm.; Couriers, Lucian. asin. p. 219; 
Jacob, quaest. Lucian. p. 12; Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 597; Boisson. 
Philostr. 660, and Nicet. p-81; Mtth. 1302. In later writers (e.g. 
Agath. 126, 7; 185, 5; 175, 14; 279, 7 etc., Ephraem. see Index 
under eivac) and in the Sept. it occurs much more frequently, 
though in the Sept. the Hebrew seldom gave occasion to this con- 
struction. On the other hand, the circumlocution of the Part. 
and to be for the finite verb became established, as is well known, 

in Aramaean; and so in Palestinean authors a national predilection 328 
for the above construction may have prevailed. Tth ol 


Acts xxi. 3 éxeioe qv 1d rotov aropopri€opevov tov youov cannot be 
rendered, with Grotius, Valckenaer and others: eo navis merces expositura 
erat, but means: thither the vessel was unlading its cargo i.e. in the nar- 
rative style: thither it was going in order to unload, (to take éketce for 
exec — cf. Bornem. Schol. p. 176— is unnecessary). That the phrase jv 
amo. refers to what the ship was just then freighted with is not to be 313 
overlooked. 6th ed. 

In Luke iii. 23 jv... dpyduevos are not to be joined together, but iv 
érav tpiaxovra forms the principal predicate, and dpydpevos is annexed as 
a closer limitation. The idiom mentioned in Vig. p. 355 is not similar. 

Of one who is already in his thirtieth year it cannot be said: he ts begin- 
ning thirty years ; he is, rather, on the point of terminating thirty years. 


867 


350 § 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 


In Jas. iii. 15 ob« eorw atryn 7 copia dvobev Karepyopnevn GAN’ erlyevos, Wuyuxi, 
etc. the Part. is employed adjectively, and éorw belongs likewise to the 
adjectives following ; cf. Franke, Demosth. p. 42. 

‘Yrdpxew with the Part. in Acts viii. 16 pdvov BeBarricpévor bajpxov eis 
TO Ovopa TOD Kvpiov Incod, is not a mere circumlocution for the finite verb, 
for BeBarr. jnoav would be the regular expression, there being no other 
form for the Plup. In Jas. ii. 15 evropevor is annexed as a predicate to 
yupvot trapxwow. In part, however, Luke xxiii. 12 zpotmjpyov ev eyOpa 
ovres might be referred to this head, for which mpédrepov ev Opa qoav 
might have been used. See as to these combinations of tapyew with the 


Part. av, Bornem. Schol. p. 143. 


329 
Tth ed 


a1. 
6th ed. 


Tivopat also (in the sense of efvac) is never in the N. T. employed with 
a Part. (Heind. Plat. Soph. 273 sq.; Lob. Soph. Aj. v. 588) to form a 
periphrasis of this sort. In Heb. v. 12 yeydvare xpetav éyovres signifies : 
ye have come to have need. In Mark ix. 3 ra tyaria atrod éyévovto otiABovta 
means: became shining. In the same way are to be explained Luke 
xxiv. 87; 2 Cor. vi. 14; Rev. xvi. 10; but in Mark i. 4 éyévero “Iwavvys 
(exstitit Joannes) is to be taken by itself, and the Participles that follow 
are added as explanatory. Just so Jno. 1. 6. 

The construction in the following passages cannot by any means be 
taken as a circumlocution for a finite verb: Geds éorw 6 évepyav ev tpty 
etc. Phil. ii. 13; 1 Cor. iv. 4, etc. (usually with the omission of the copula, 
Rom. viii. 83; Heb. iii. 4, etc.) ¢¢ is God that worketh etc., cf. Fr. Rom. II. 
rh A se Ea ia OG gt rs 


6. Greek prose authors seldom take the liberty of omitting the 
Subs. verb in such constructions, so as to make the Part. stand 
exactly for a finite verb ;! and then it is done only in simple tense 
and mood forms (see Hm. Vig. 776; Mtth. 1803; Siebelis, Pausan. 
III. 106; Wannowski, synt. anom. 202 sq.).? Expositors, disregard- 
ing the corrections of Greek philologers (Hm. Vig. 770, 776 sq. ; 
Bremi in the Philol. Beitr. a. d. Schweiz. I. 172 ff. ; Bornem. Xen. 
conv. p. 146 and Schol. in Lue. p. 183 ; Déderlein, Soph. Oed. Col. 
p.- 993 sq; Bhdy. 470), have often and unhesitatingly assumed such 
a usage in the N.T. But in nearly all the passages so explained, 
a finite verb either precedes or follows, to which the Part. is to be 
joined (and then merely the usual punctuation of the text must not 
be minded) ; or there is an anacoluthon, owing to the writer’s 


1 Cf. Fr. Rom. I. 282. As to the Byzantine use of Participles simply for finite verbs, 
see Index to Malalas, in the Bonn ed. p. 797. (We are not speaking here of the poets ;” 
see e.¢. Hm. review of Miiller’s Eumenid. 8. 23.) 

2 The restriction under which Mehlhorn in the Allg. Lit. Z. 1833. no. 78 maintains 
this ellipsis, can neither be fully justified on philosophic grounds, nor can instances be 
found, especially in later authors, to support it. 


§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 861 


having lost sight of the construction with which he began (Poppo, 


Thue. III. III. 138). Several such passages have been correctly 868 


explained by Ostermann in Crenii exercitatt. IL. 522 sq. 

a. In 2 Cor. iv. 13 éyovres must be joined to the mucrevopev fol- 
lowing: as wehave ... we also believe. In 2 Pet. ii. 1 both apvov- 
wevor and érayovtes are to be connected with wapewsafovow ; they 
are not, however, co-ordinate with each other, but évayovres is an- 
nexed to the clause oftiwes ... apvovpevot. In Rom. v. 11 adda 
Kal Kavyopevor has not so close a correspondence to cwOncopeia, 
that cavywpefa (var.) was to have been expected ; but the meaning 
appears to be but not only shall we be saved (simply and actually), 

‘but while we, so that we etc. (expressive of the joyous consciousness 

of the saved). In 2 Cor. viii. 20 cTeAXopevor is to be connected, as 
to the sense, with ovverréuwayev in vs. 18. In Heb. vi. 8 é«dé- 
povoa does not stand for éxpéper, but this Part. corresponds to 
miovea and tixtovea in vs. T, and by 6€ is placed in opposition 
to both; but an éor/ is to be supplied with ddoxiuos and Kkatapas 
éyyus. In 2 Pet. ili. 5 cvveordoa is a proper Part. (attributive), 
and the preceding joav avails also for 7 yj. In Heb. vii. 2 éppn- 
vevowevos must be joined to Medyic. in vs. 1., asd cuvavt. and @ 
éuepicev are parenthetical clauses, and the principal verb in the 
sentence follows all the predicates in vs. 3 péver tepevs etc. In 
Eph. v. 21 tvroraccdpevor, like the other Participles in vss. 19, 20, 
certainly belongs with the principal verb wAnpotaGe ev tv., and is 
not to be taken for an Imperative, as has been done by Koppe, Flatt, 
and others; the ai yuvatces etc. in vs. 22 is then joined, without 
a special verb (for b7rotdccecOe is undoubtedly a gloss), to d7ro- 
tacoomevot, as a further illustration. Likewise in 1 Pet. v. T the 
Participles are connected with the foregoing Imperative in vs. 6; 
and 1 Pet. iii. 1 refers back to ii. 18, where the Part. is to be joined 
to the Imperat. in vs. 17. In the same way in 2 Thess. ili. 8 épya- 
Couevor is to be joined to €v Kor@ Kal poyPw, and this again cor- 
responds to dwpeav as an adjunct to the verb dprov édayowev. In 
Heb. x. 8 Aéywv belongs to the verb following in vs. 9, eipnxev. 
In x. 16 d:d0vs may very well be connected with dcaOjcowar. Rom. 
vii 13 has long since been correctly explained. 1 Pet. iv. 8 needs 
no explanation. 

b. Acts xxiv. 5 begins with the Part. edpovtes tov dvdpa, and 
vs. 6 should have continued éxparjocapev adrov ete.; instead of 
this the writer annexes this principal verb to the interposed relative 
clause Os cal... émeipace. In2 Pet. i. 17 XaBav yap rapa Oeod 


330 


Tth ed. 


352 § 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 


etc. the structure is interrupted by the parenthetical clauses davis 
..evooxnoa ; and the apostle continues in vs. 18 with cai ta’rny 
369 tiv hoviv iets Heovocaper, instead of saying, as he intended, suas 
eye TaUTHY THY Pwvyy axovoaytas, or something similar (Fr. diss. 
315 in 2 Cor. II. 44).1. In 2 Cor. v. 6 @appotvres, after several interme- 
6th ed. diate clauses, is resumed in Oappotdpev O€é vs. 8. In vii. 5 odSeuiav 
éoynkey averw 9 capt yuav, aN év mavtl OAXLBopmevot, ewer 
payat etc., jueOa (from 7) cap& 7 4ev) may be supplied (Hm. Vig. 
p. 770) 3 but an anacoluthon may also be assumed (Fr. as above, 
p. 49), as if Paul had written in the previous part of the sentence 
ovdeniav averw éoxnkapev TH capKi nuov. In v.12 adoppnv didovtes 
must be taken as a Part., but the foregoing clause must be under-* 
stood as if it had run ov yap ypadopev tadta wadw éavtod’s cure 
oTavovres, or, What comes to the same thing, the more general 
A€yowev, ypapouev, be deduced from cvwatavopuev ; see Mey. in loc. 
In 1 Pet. ii. 11 azréyeo@e is the reading now adopted, with which 
in vs. 12 éyovres is regularly connected ; and in Acts xxvi. 20 
aTyyyedXov was long ago substituted for avayyéAXwv. As to Rom. 
xii. 6 ff.; Heb. viii. 10, and 1 Pet. iii. 1, 7 see §63. (In Rev. x. 2 
éyov is subjoined independently and écri can be supplied.) 


In Rom. iii. 23 too, ravres ... dorepodvrat THs ddEys Tod Oeod, Stxarovpevor 
dwpedy etc., the Part. cannot stand for a finite verb (even Ostermann 
explains it torepotyrat Kat duxacodtyra), but the Apostle as his words show 
conceived the connection thus: and come short of the glory of God, in 
that (since) they are justified freely ; the latter is proof of the former. 

In 1 Cor. iii. 19 6 dpaccdpevos tots copots ev TH Tavoupyia airav, a 
quotation from the Old Test., does not form a complete sentence, but 
contains merely the words suited to the Apostle’s purpose, cf. Heb. i. 7. 
What the Apostle quotes incompletely we ought not to wish to complete 
by annexing an éori, As to 1 Pet. i. 14, see Fr. Conject. I. 41 sq.; the 
Part. p) ovoynparilopevor may be taken as depending on éAmicare, or, as 

331 1 prefer, may be connected with yevyOnre vs. 15 as parallel to Kara roy 

ith ed. xaXécavra ete. As little reason is there in proverbs, such as 2 Pet. ii. 22 
Kiwv érirtpewas ért To ldvov eSepapa and ts Aovoapevy etc., to change the 
Part. into the finite verb. The words run: a dog, that turns to his own 
vomit, as if spoken deuxrixds in reference to a case under observation ; just 
as we say in German e.g. ein riiudiges Schaf! (‘a black sheep,’ Eng.) 
when a bad man makes himself conspicuous among the good. 

In another way a Part. was taken for a finite verb, when the Part. 


1 Yet it may also be assumed that Peter wished to say: receiving Jrom God honor and 
glory — he was declared to be the beloved Son of God, but interrupts the construction with 
the direct quotation of the words uttered by the voice from heaven. 


§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 303 


seemed to express an action following that denoted by the finite verb 
(Bihr in Creuzer Melet. III. 50 sq.). In the N. T., however, there is no 
single established instance of this msage.. In Luke iv. 15 ediackey... 870 
dogalopevos tro mavrwv means: he taught being glorified of all, — while he 

was glorified of all (during his teaching). Jas. ii. 9 €i d& tposwrodnrreire, 316 
dpapriav epyaler Oe éXeyxopevor bd Tod vopov etc. is: ye commit sin, while bth ed. 
(since) ye are convicted, being convicted (as zposwroAnrrotvtes) ; Gebser 

is wrong. In Heb. xi. 35 érupravicOnoav ob rposdekapevor THY arodtTpwow 

not accepting the deliverance (offered them), zposdeg. denotes something 
preceding rather than following the tupravié.; cf. Heb. ix. 12. Acts 
xix. 29, too, does not contain the use of the Aor. Part. in narration men- 
tioned by Hm. Vig. 774; as dpyyody re dpovpador eis TO Oéarpov, cvvap- 
macavres I'diov cai “Apiocrapyov means either, after they had seized along 
with themselves (from their quarters) or, while they seized along with them. 

In Luke i. 9 Aayev rod Pvprdoo ecisehOav eis TOV vadv Tov Kupiov, the Part. 
probably belongs to the Inf. (as the Vulgate takes it): entering into the 
temple to burn incense; Mey. is artificial. As to Rom. ili. 23, see above, 

p- 352. Rom. ii. 4 requires no elucidation. Likewise the peculiarity oc- 
casionally found in Greek authors, according to which the principal notion 

is expressed by a Part. and the secondary by a finite verb (Mtth. 1295 f. ; 
Hm. Soph. Aj. 172; Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 186), has by some been un- 
warrantably forced upon the N.T.; such critics having quite forgotten 

- that the usage in question could not occur independently of any limitation 
involved in the nature of the ideas to be expressed. ‘To explain 2 Cor. 

v. 2 orevalopev ... éxirofotvres as put for érirofotpev orevalovres is emi- 
nently infelicitous ; the Part. must be regarded as subjoined to the verb, 

and explained as causal like crevalowev Bapovpevor jn vs. 4. 

T. The Present Part. (with the Article) is often used substan- 
tively, and then, as a noun, excludes all indication of time. In 
Eph. iv. 28 0 KXNérTa@v pnkéte KrAeTTETW is NOt for 0 Kréras (as 
some Codd. have); but, let the stealer i.e. the thief steal no more, 
Heb. xi. 28. So also when it is accompanied with an Ace. of the 
Object, or other adjuncts; as, Gal. i. 23.6 Suékwv suas moré our 
Jormer persecutor, Matt. xxvii. 40 6 katadvwv tov vaov the destroyer 
of the temple (in his imagination), Rev. xve2 of wxdvtes ex Tod 
@npiov (which Hichhorn, Einl. N. T. I. 378, mentions as singular!), 
xx.10; Gal. ii. 2 (oi doxodvres see Kypke II. 274; cf. also Pachym. 332 
I. 117, 188, etc.) ; 1 Thess. i.10; v.24; 1 Pet.i.17; Rom. v.17; “# 
Jno. xii. 20 (xiii. 11); cf. Soph. Antig. 239 or’ eSov dstis Fv 6 
dpav, Paus. 9, 25, 5 droid éotw adrois Kal TH LnTpi TA Opopmeva, 
Diog. L. 1, 87 Bpadéws eyxeiper Tois mpatTrouévoss (faciendis), Soph. 
Electr. 200 6 ratdra mpdcowv, Plat. Cratyl. 416 b. 6 Ta ovopara 


7Heis, Demosth. Theocrin. 508 b. and frequently in the orators 
45 


371 


954 § 45, THE PARTICIPLE. 

0 Tov vouov TiBeis (legislator), 6 ypddav tiv paptupiav ¢Bremi, 
Demosth. p. 72) Strabo 15,713; Arrian. Al. 5, 7,12; Poppo, Thue. 
I. 1.152; Schaef. Eurip. Orest. p?70; Demosth. V. 120, 127; poet. 
enom. 228 sq., and Plutarch. V. 211 sq.; Weber, Demosth. 180 ; 
Bornem. Schol. p. 10; Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 22; Maetzner ad 
Antiphont. p. 182. Likewise in Acts ili. 2 o¢ e’s7ropevopevos is used 
substantively, those entering; one cannot regard it with Kuhnol 


917 (Matt. p. 824), on the ground that pédAAovtas efstévae occurs In 
bihed. ys. 3, as the Present Part. used for the Fut. The more precise 


expression is quite appropriate in vs. 3, as the person addressing 
the two apostles detained them a short time during their etsvévas. 
(In other passages, when there is a distinct reference to past time, 
the Aorist Part. is used substantively ; as, Jno. v. 29; Acts ix. 21; 
2 Cor. vii. 12, etc., cf. 0 éxeivou rexdv Kurip. Electr. 335, of trav tovtov 
rexovtes Aeschyl. Pers. 245,— Aristoph. eccl. 1126 7) éuz cextnpévn, 
Lucian. Tim. 56.) 


Such Present Participles with the Article show themselves to be com- 
plete substantives when a Genitive is joined to them, as in 1 Cor. vii. 35 
TpOSs TO Upov avtTav cuudépov (Demosth. cor. 816¢. Ta pixpa cupp€povta THs 
moAews) ; see Lob. Soph. Aj. 238 sq.; Held, Plut. Aem. p. 252. 

8. In quotations from the Old Test. a Part. is occasionally con- 
nected with some person of the same verb (and placed before it) ; 
as, Acts vil. 84 dOwy etdov from Exod. iii. 7 (cf. Lucian. dial. mar. 
4,3), Heb. vi. 14 evroyav evtroyjow ce Kal TANOIVaY TANOUIO cE 
(from Gen. xxii. 17), Matt. xiii. 14 Arérovres BrAEWere (from Isa. 
vi. 9). This construction is extremely. frequent in the Sept., as 
Judges i. 28; iv. 9; \vii..19.5, xi. 25, ;,xv. 65 Gen. teen 
Xxxvil. 8,10; xliii.6; Exod. iii. 7; 1Sam.i.10; iii. 21; xiv. 28; 
1 Kings xi. 11; Job vi. 1; Ruthii. 16; 1 Macc. v. 40; Judith 
ii. 18 (see Thiersch p. 164 sqq.), and is a Hellenizing of the Hebrew 
Inf. Absolute (Ewald, krit: Gr. 560 ff.), though the LXX, once 
accustomed to the construction, sometimes employ it even where 
the Hebrew containg no Inf. Absol., as in Exod. xxiii. 26. This 
mode of expression, however, was judiciously chosen, although in 
Greek prose, with the exception of that isolated (dev etdov in Lucian, 
no perfectly satisfactory parallels can be shown (Georgi, vind. p. 
196 sq. has mixed together things dissimilar) ;! for in the instances 


1 Some passages have been quoted according to erroneous readings. Plat. Tim. 30c. 
runs thus: ti tav Céwy abtdy eis duoidtynTa 6 kumoras Evvicrnoe. Likewise Plat. Lach. 
185 d. cxorotpevor oxorovmev is questioned by recent critics, and Mtth. 1301 proposes 
to read: oxomoduevy & oxoTwovuer. Yet the singularity here consists more in the con- 
nection of the Middle and Active. 


a 


§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 355 


apparently corresponding the Part. carries its own idea, as in Her. 
0,95 hevyov éxdevyes fuga evadit (Diod. Sic. 17, 83), and still 
more in Xen. Cyr. 8, 4,9 wraxovwy oyod} wtmjKoveoa,! Lucian. 
parasit. 43 devywy éxetbev ... eis Tr. Tavpéov Taraictpay Karédvye, 
see Gataker de stylo c. 9; Lob. paralip. p. 522. The later wri- 
ters are the first to imitate this construction, as Anna Alex. 3, 80; 
Kuseb. H. E.6,45. Originally this Participle implied an emphasis, 
though subsequently it may have become weakened. In the three 
passages quoted above, this emphasis is perceptible. We express 
it by the voice and the position of the words, or by a corresponding 
abverb, etc.: well have I seen, — surely (richly ?) will I bless thee, 
— with your own eyes shall ye see, etc. Acts xiii. 45 is a construc- 
tion of another sort: ot “Iovdéatoe avtéXeyov tots bd tod ITuvrov 
Aeyouévors, avTireyovtes Kai Pracdnpovytes, where dytédeyor is 
taken up again in the Part. and strengthened by Bracd. 


Eph. v. 5 rotro tore ywaokovres probably does not come under this 
head, but ‘ove refers to what is stated in vs. 38f., and yuck. is construed 
with 67: this, however, ye know, aware (considering) that, ete. That 
1 Pet.i. 10, 12; Acts v. 4 do not come under this rule, is obvious to every 
one. Tinally, it passes comprehension that Kiihndl should adduce Heb. 
x. 37 6 épxopevos 7&ea (he omits, it is true, the Article) as an instance of 
the above usage. 

Note 1. On Participles used absolutely, see § 59. Such is also rvyov, 
1 Cor. xvi. 6, which is inserted in the clause as an adverb, Xen. A. 6, 1, 
20; Plato, Alcib. 2, 140, etc. 

Note 2. Sometimes two finite verbs are so closely connected by xat, 
that the first has, logically, the force of a Part., e.g. Matt. xviil. 21 roodkes 
dpaptnoes eis ee 6 ddeAOs prov Kal adyow adra, i.e. dpaprynravTe TO AdeAPO. 
This distribution of a single (logical) clause into two grammatical clauses is 
a peculiarity of Oriental diction, and is of frequent occurrence ; see § 66, 7. 

Note 5. Luke and Paul (still more, however, the author of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews) are peculiarly fond of participial constructions. Paul 
accumulates Part. on Part.; cf. 1 Thess. 11. 15 f.; Tit. 11. 12, 13; 2 Cor. 
iy. 8-10. In narration, however, the use of Participles appears on the 
whole less frequent and less diversified in the N. T. than in Greek his- 
torical authors. The historical discourse of the N.'T. runs on in simple 


1 Tt is hardly hecessary to remark that the phrase idv ofda (scio me vidisse) Athen. 
6, 226; Arrian. Ind. 4,15 does not come under this head. Cf. also dkovoas ofda Lucian. 
dial. mort, 28, 1. 

? This author has rightly set aside the passage from Aeschyl. Prom. 447. But he 
found himself finally compelled to let the instance from Lucian. dial. mar. stand. 
Accordingly, viewed linguistically, it approximates the Hebrew mode of expression, a 
fact which Z’hiersch should not have questioned. 


333 
Tth ed. 


872 


518 


6th ed. 


356 §46. THE PARTICLES IN GENERAL, 


334 clauses (which are joined together especially by the oft-recurring xa/) 
ith ed. and disdains the periodic structure in which the Greeks were so expert. 
Yet cf. Bornem. Xen. Cyrop. p. 465. 


378 CHAPTER V. 
THE PARTICLES. 


§ 46. THE PARTICLES IN GENERAL. 


1. Although propositions and periods can be formed by means 
of those inflections of the noun and verb whose syntax has been 
discussed in the preceding pages— (propositions, in particular, by 

219 means of Cases, the use of which is so varied in Greek ; periods, 

th ed. by means of Infinitives, Participles, etc.) — yet those inflections 
alone do not suffice for the great diversity of relations which give 
origin to propositions and periods. Hence language possesses 
besides a vast stock of so-called particles, by whose aid it becomes 
possible to construct all conceivable propositions and all their con- 
ceivable combinations. Particles are divided, as is well-known, 
into Prepositions, Adverbs, and Conjunctions (Rost 8. 717) ; 
though respecting the boundary-lines which separate these three 
species from each other, grammarians have not yet been able to 
agree. Of., in particular, Hm. emend. rat. p. 149 ff. 


Interjections are not words, but sounds ; and lie quite beyond the limits 
of Syntax, and indeed of Grammar. 


2. Without attempting to settle the dispute among grammarians 
respecting the boundaries of these three classes of particles, we see 
at once as much as this: 

1) That the classification must be made not on the basis of the 
words but of their signification ; as it has long been acknowledged 
that prepositions e.g. often assume the nature of adverbs, and vice 
versi (Hm. as above, p. 161),—in fact, that the prepositions are 
adverbs originally. 

2) That all particles either serve merely to complete the struc- 
ture of a simple proposition and confine their import within its 

374 limits, or are designed to join one proposition to another. The 
latter are properly called Conjunctions; and if the grammarian 


§ 46. THE PARTICLES IN GENERAL. 357 


pays regard to the language (expressed thought) rather than to 
the (pure) thought, he may reckon among them the comparative 
particle @s (és7rep), the particles of time (é7e/, dte, d7roTe, etc.), 

the negative particle of design 7 etc., so far forth as they are also 335 
connectives; so that these particles, according to their import, ed 
may be classed either as adverbs or as conjunctions. The power 

of adverbs and prepositions, however, is confined to the limits of a 
simple proposition; the structure of this they serve to complete. 
Prepositions denote only relations (of substantives) ; adverbs, inhe- 
rent attributes (of terms of quality or condition, and consequently 

of adjectives and verbs, inasmuch as the latter are compounded of 
the copula and a term of quality or condition). See, especially, 
Hm., as above, 152 ff. 


_ We shall perhaps never succeed in effecting a thoroughly satisfactory 
classification of the particles, since in this matter language practically does 
not coincide perfectly with the philosophical method of pure theory. 
Much light is shed on the relation of particles to the structure of sentences 
by Grotefend, Grundziige einer neuen Satztheorie. Hannover, 1827. 8vo.; 
Kriiger, Erérterung der grammat. Eintheilung und grammat. Verhiiltn. 
der Siitze. Frft.a. M. 1826. 8vo. Cf. also Werner in the n. Jahrb. f. Philol. 
1854. p. 89 ff. 


3. The great copiousness of the Greek language in particles, as g99 
developed in the elegant literary Attic, is shared by the N. T. dic- éth ed 
tion to but a limited extent; for not only was the (later) popular 
language of the Greeks in general more frugal in the use of par- 
ticles, but the N. 'T. authors also, as they imparted a Jewish tinge 
to their presentations of thought, did not feel impelled to employ 
the niceties of Greek composition in the structure of periods. 
From the nature of the case, however, while they could easily 
dispense with the great variety of conjunctions, they could least 
dispense with the prepositions. In treating of particles, N. T. 
Grammar, if it will avoid encroaching on the department of Lexi- 
cography, should not take up the particles separately and explain 
in detail all their various significations, but should endeavor 
rather, primarily to give only a clear and discriminating deline- 
ation of the various modifications of thought which the particles 
are employed to designate; and then in every instance to point 
out how far these varieties of meaning have been expressed by 
the N. T. writers through the use of the abundant store of particles 
which the Greek language supplied. At the same time, however, 
it will take pains to exhibit in its leading traits, so far as the exist- 


858 § 47, THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC. 


ing state of N.T. Lexicography and Interpretation may permit, 
the mutual dependence of the significations of the principal parti- 

375 cles, and emphatically to protest against the arbitrariness of what 
is called enallage particularum. 


The general subject of the Greek particles had never been in any 
considerable degree exhaustively treated even down to quite recent times, 
either as respects the facts (especially in reference to the various periods 

336 of the language) or still less as respects their philosophy. The works of 

ith él Mt. Devarius (Reusmann’s edition, Lips. 1793. 8vo.) and H. Hoogeveen 
(Amsterd. 1769. II. 4to. condensed by Schiitz, Lips. 1806. 8vo.) are no 
longer satisfactory, especially as they entirely omit the prepositions. On 
the other hand, J. A. Hartung, Lehre y. d. Partikeln der griech. Spr. Erlang. . 
1852 f. II. 8vo. merits recognition. Still more helpful are the acute re- 
searches with which R. Klotz has enriched his edition of Devarius (Lips. 
1835. 1842. II. 8vo.) ; [cf also W. Baumlein, Untersuchung iib. griech. 
Partikeln. Stuttg. 1861. 8vo.]. Schraut, on the other hand, die griech. 
Partikeln im Zusammenhange mit den iiltesten Stiimmen der Sprache 
(Neuss, 1848), is too fanciful. A comparative treatment is given by E. A. 
Fritsch, vergleich. Bearbeit. d. griech. u. lat. Partikeln. Giessen, 1856. 8yo. 
For the biblical particles a Lexicon Particularum to the Sept. and the 
Apocrypha is a desideratum, as the concordances and Schleusner also in 
his Thesaur. Philol. have entirely omitted these words. (Bruder, as is 
well known, has carefully inserted the particles in his N. T. Concordance.) 
Tittmann’s treatise on N. T. Particles (de usu particular. N. T. Cap. 1, 2, 
Lips. 1831. IL. 4to., also in his Synonym. N. T. II. 42 sqq.) is not thoroughly 
to be commended; moreover it was interrupted by the death of the acute 
and learned author, who however did not pay due attention to the actual 
usage of the language. 


821 §47. THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, AND SUCH AS GOVERN 
bth ed. THE GENITIVE IN PARTICULAR. 


1. The prepositions correspond to the cases; hence each accord- 
ing to its signification is connected with a particular case, viz. 
with that case whose primary meaning accords with the primary 
meaning of the preposition. Prepositions are employed where the 
cases are insufficient to indicate a relation (for these relations are 
extremely diversified), and sometimes also where a case would 

376 have sufficed indeed, but on account of the variety of its uses did 
1 Cf. Hm. de emend. rat. p. 161 sqq ; B. G. Weiske, de praeposition. gr. comment. 
Gorlic. 1809 f.; A. G. Schmidt, quaestion. grammat. de pracposition. gr. Berol. 1829. 8vo.; 


Déderlein, Reden u. Aufs. I. nr. 3; Bhdy. S. 195 ff. ; Schneider, Vorles. S. 181 ff. 


$47, THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC. 359 


not appear to the speaker to be definite enough for his purpose. 
They are relatively more numerous in the N.T. than in Greek 
prose, because the apostles had not such an inherent sense as 
cultivated native Greeks of the extended application of the 
cases; besides, the Oriental prefers the more vivid expression ; 
and moreover, the Hebrew-Aramaic language indicates by means 
of prepositions nearly all those relations which are designated in 
Greek by cases alone. 

2. In treating of prepositions it is necessary, in the first place, 337 
to seize with clearness and precision the true primary meaning of Te. 
each from which all its applications emanate as from a common ~ 
centre, and to trace back to this all the various shades of meaning 
the preposition may have assumed, —i.e. to show how the transi- 
tion to every such application was effected in the mind of the 
speaker or writer; and secondly, to take cognizance of the case, 
and the necessity for it, which is joined to a given preposition, 
either in general or in a particular range of significations (Bern- 
hardi, allg. Sprachl. I. 164 f.), and in turn to make use of this 
knowledge in fixing the limits of the signification of the prep- 
ositions themselves. The former, viz. the determination of the 
primary meaning of the prepositions as exhibited now in their 
construction with the Gen. now with the Dat. etc., will set in its 
true light the mutual interchange of prepositions, which in the 
N. T. has been thought to be wholly unlimited. The latter must 
be performed without a passion for over-strained refinements, and 
with a recognition at the outset of the fact that, according to the 
special, and according to the more or less precise, perception of a 
relation to be expressed (particularly if mental), one and the same 
preposition may be construed with several different cases (cf. Hm. 
emend. rat. 163). 

In treating of prepositions in the N. Ts, it is only necessary to 
add first, a notice of how far later Greek, and in particular the 
popular language, extended the use and import of prepositions, 
obliterated their nicer distinctions, and was led probably even into 322 
improprieties in employing them ; further, to pay constant regard 4 
to the Hebrew-Aramaic, which delights in the use of prepositions 
and presents humerous relations under aspects different from the 
Greek (cf. e.g. dudcas év Twi, atroxretvey ev poudaia); and finally, 
not to leave out of sight the distinctively Christian view which 3877 
underlies the use of many prepositions (e.g. év Xpior@ or Kupiw). 


The maltreatment of the prepositions until a few decades ago on the 


338 
Tth ed. 


6th ed. 
378 


860 § 47. THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC. 


part of N.'T. philologists in Lexicons and Commentaries (e.g. Koppe’s 
N. T.) was really horrible ;' but it found precedent and support in the 
purely empirical treatment of the Hebrew prepositions current until Ewald’s 
time, see my exeget. Stud. I. 27 ff. Wahl was the first to pursue a better 
course ; and almost everybody now has begun to be ashamed of the license 
just described. 

As respects in particular the comparative predominance of the Greek 
element and of the Hebrew-Aramaic in the use of the prepositions, it must 
not be overlooked, 1) that many constructions which the N.T. writers 
adopted through the influence of their mother tongue, occur also in Greek 
poets and later prose writers, so diversified is the use of the Greek prepo- 
sitions; 2) that though in the more Hebraistic portions of the N. T. 
(particularly in the Revelation) the exposition from the Hebrew suggests 
itself, yet we must not on that account explain the Greek prepositions in 
all the books indiscriminately by a reference to the Hebrew ; for simul- 
taneously with the Greek prepositions a multitude of special linguistic 
relations had been communicated to the Apostles, and close observation 
shows that as respects the relations expressed by prepositions the Apostles 
had already become accustomed to think in Greek; 3) that, especially in 
Paul (and John), the un-Hellenic application of several prepositions (e.g. 
év) is closely connected with doctrinal phraseology, and belongs to the 
Apostolic (Christian) element in N. T. diction. 


3. The proper and the metaphorical significations of each prepo- 
sition must be accurately distinguished. The former always refer 
primarily to local relations (Bernhardi I. 290); and if these are 
conceived in great multiplicity by a nation, a corresponding multi- 
plicity of prepositions is the result. The simple relations of place 
are but two, — that of rest and that of motion (or even merely of 
direction, which is viewed as more or less a motion). ‘The latter, 
however, comprises motion towards and motion from. The notion 
of rest is denoted by the Dative; that of motion towards, by the 
Accusative ; that of motion from, by the Genitive. 

Local designations to which single prepositions correspond are, 
a) of rest: in év, by the side of mapa, upon emt, over uTép, under 
(iro), amid (with) werd, before mpo, behind peta, on (up on) ava, 
about audi, around mepi, over against av7i; b) of (direction) 
motion towards a point: into eis, towards cata, to mpos, upon énrt, 
to beside mapa, under tro; ¢) of (direction) motion rom: out of 
éx, from amo, from under uo, down from xara, from beside mapa. 
To the last division may be referred through relating to space (8s) 


1 Tittmann, de scriptor. N. T. diligentia gramm. p. 12 (Synon. I. 207): nulla est, ne 
repugnans quidem significatio, quin quaecunque praepositio eam in N. T. habere dicatur. 


a Nae, Lo 
as +" 


§ 47. THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC. 861 


(cf. Progr. de verbor. cum praeposs. compositor. in N. T. usu V. 
p- 3), for which the Hebrew uses ya, and the German sometimes aus 
(e.g. aus dem Thore gehen). 

4, Language deals at first with the ideas of time by taking local 
relations as the pattern ; hence temporal senses also are put upon 
most of the prepositions. Not till later does the transition ensue 
to immaterial, purely ideal relations, which every nation conceives 
under forms more or less material. This produces a correspond- 
ing diversity in national modes of expression. A Greek, for 
instance, says, Aéyew wept Twos; a Roman, dicere de aliqua re; 

a Hebrew, 3-23; a German, iiber etwas sprechen. The first views . 
the object as a central point which the speaker as it were encom- 339 
passes (to speak about a thing); the Roman, as a whole of which ‘hed 
the speaker imparts something to the hearer (de as it were to speak 

off something from the object);! the Hebrew, as the ground on 
which the speaker stands (to speak on something) ; the German, 

as something lying before the speaker over which his discourse 
extends (for uber governs in this connection the Accusative). 

The notion of origin, and consequently of cause, is most naturally 
implied in the prepositions from, out of (a0, i770, apa, éx) ; that 
of occasion, and consequently also of motive, in mpos, eis (e.g. on 
the report), é7ré with the Dat. and da with the Acc. (on account of). 
Here és refers to the basis on which something rests; hence we 
also use the word ground for reason. Design and aim expressed 
by to are denoted by éz/ with the Dat., or by eés or pos with the Acc. 
Condition is expressed by évi with the Dat., just as we say by a 3879 
similar metaphor: aw Lohn Recht sprechen. The object which 
produces an emotion is indicated by érz with the Gen., as in German 
sich freuen diber (rejoice over), stolz sein auf (pride one’s self on). 

To speak in reference to an object is Neyew mepi Tivos (see above). 
The rule, or standard, is expressed either by after (arpos, cata) or 
by from (é«) ; in the former construction, the rule is conceived as 
something after, according to, which a thing is to shape itself; in 
the latter, as that from which the thing regulated is derived. 
Lastly, the means finds natural expression in ova with the Gen., 324 
sometimes in év. 6th ed 

5. One preposition may sometimes, no doubt, be employed for 
another ; but we must deduct from instances of this class all those 
in which an immaterial relation may be expressed with equal pro- 


1 As to the primary import of the Latin de, see Heidtmann in the Zeitschr. f. Alterth. 
Wiss. 1846. no. 109 f. 
46 


362 § 47, THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC. 


priety by several different prepositions,! (loqui de re and super re, 
Chv &« and amo Twos, mpedetoVas aro and é« 7. Xen. Cyr. 5, 4, 34; 
Mem. 2, 4,1, also émri ru, arroxteiverOau aro and éx Twos Rev. ix. 18, 
atobvnckew &x Twos Rev. viii. 11 and t76 7., drobvncKew trép and 
Tepl TOV apapTiov, aywvifecOat wepi and w7ép Tivos, ExréyeoOat amo 

340 and é« Tév pabytov).2 ‘This cannot be called enallage of preposi- 

ithel tions. On the other hand, particularly in expressing local relations, 
the more comprehensive preposition may be used for the more 
restricted, (as Luke xxiv. 2 aoxvrifev tov AOov a 6 Tod vnpelov, 
but Mark xvi. 3 é« Tis Ovpas rod uvnuelov ; the latter agrees better 
with the precise facts of the case: out of the door —cut into the 
rock). ‘This is sometimes attributable to the fact that it does not 
seem to be everywhere necessary to speak with entire precision, 
sometimes the author may through negligence have used the more 
indefinite term for the more definite. The interchange of preposi- 
tions is only apparent when any of them is employed praegnanter, 
i.e. when it includes also a second relation, the antecedent or con- 

880 sequent of that which it strictly expresses, as KaTovKety Ets THY TOAD, 
eivat UO Vomov; or in case of an attraction, as aipew ta éx Ths oiKias 
Matt. xxiv. 17, drotd£acOai tots eis Tov oixov Luke ix. 61. 


An arbitrary interchange of prepositions — (of which the earlier N. T. 
commentaries are full, and which was upheld in part by an abuse of 
parallel passages, especially in the gospels) — would never have entered 
the imagination of critics, had they been accustomed to consider language 
as a living instrument of social intercourse. It is really preposterous 
to suppose that any one could have said, ‘he is travelling to Egypt’ for 
‘he is travelling x Egypt’ (eis for év) ; or, ‘all is for him’ instead of ‘all 
is from him.’ In expressing by, for instance, dud and év are not thoroughly 
equivalent to each other, particularly dua “I. Xpuorod and év “I. Xpuo7d. 
In Latin, also, per (before names of persons) and the Ablative (of things) 
are usually distinguished. Close observation shows in general how cor- 
rectly the N. T. writers discriminate between those prepositions even which 


1 Thus Paul sometimes employs different prepositions in parallel clauses, to give 
variety to his discourse ; as, Rom. iii. 80 bs Sucadoer repitouy ex mlaTews Kal axpoBuoTtlay 
dia THs wioTews, Eph. iii. 8 f. 

2 Sometimes in different languages the same relation, because viewed under different 
aspects, is expressed by prepositions of exactly opposite significations. Thus Germans 
say, zur Rechten ; the Romans, Greeks, and Hebrews, a dextra etc. Even one and 
the same language may express a relation, especially if ideal, by opposite prepositions. 
We say on the condition and under the condition. In South Germany they say, relation 
or friend to (zu) one; in Saxony, relation or friend of (von) one. How ridiculous it 
would be to infer from such instances, that ef (von) is sometimes equivalent to to (zu), 
and on to under ! 


§ 47. PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC. 863 


are closely allied (e.g. Rom. xiii. 1 ot« éorw efovola ei pn 76 Oeod, ai dé 
ovoar bd Tov Oeod reraypevat ciciv).' And we ought to honor them and 325 
ourselves by recognizing everywhere their scrupuloys care. bth ef 

Where either of two prepositions might be employed with equal pro- 
priety, a preference for one in the N.'T. is perhaps to be attributed to the 
Hellenistic tinge of its diction; this, at least, the critic must take into 
consideration as a possibility. Planck, however (articuli nonnulli Lex. 
noy. in N. T. Goett. 1824. 4to. p. 14), is mistaken in supposing that dyads 
mpos tt (Eph. iv. 29) is less correct Greek than ets 7. The former con- 
struction is of frequent occurrence, e.g. Theophr. hist. plant. 4, 3, 1 and 7; 

9, 13, 3; Xen. Mem. 4, 6, 10, etc.; see Schneider, Plat. civ. II. 278. 

With such prepositions as in different significations govern different 
cases, it is sometimes possible, when ¢mmaterial relations are to be ex- 341 
pressed, to use either of two cases with equal correctness (as éxé with Thel. 
Gen. or Acc.). Sometimes the Codd. vary between the two; see Rom. 
viii. 11. In the N. T. this has been erroneously said to hold frequently 
in reference to dua; see below, § 47,1, d. p. 381, cf. § 49c. Purely external 
relations, on the contrary, sustain no such interchange in careful writers ; 
only very late, especially the Byzantine, authors indulge in it, and con- 
found e.g. wera with the Gen. and with the Acc. ; see the word in the Index 
to Malalas in the Bonn ed., cf. Schaef. Ind. ad Aesop. p. 136; Boisson. 881 
Anecd. IV. 487; V. 84.2 Indeed the later writers have already become 
so devoid of an appreciation of the cases as to begin to connect prepositions 
even with cases altogether foreign to them, — a7, for instance, with Acc. 
‘and Dat., card with Dat., jv with Gen.; see Index to Leo Gramm. and 
Theophan.? 

The attempt, recently revived, to explain this alleged interchange of 
cases in the N. T. by the circumstance that Hebrew has no cases, is to be 
rejected, if for no other reason, because apart from a very small number 
of doubtful exceptions the N.'T. writers exhibit a correct perception of 
the differences between the cases. 

The position of prepositions is more simple in the N. T. than in the 
classics, Mtth. I. 1899 f. They are uniformly placed immediately before 
the noun, and only those conjunctions which never stand at the beginning 
of a clause intervene between preposition and substantive ; as, dé Matt. 

xi, 12; xxil. 81; xxiv. 22, 36; Acts v. 12, ydp Jno. iv. 87; v.46; Acts 
viil. 23; Rom iii. 20, re Acts x. 89; xxv. 24, ye Luke xi. 8; xviii. 5, peév 
and pev yap Rom. xi. 22; Acts xxviii. 22; 2 Tim. iv. 4. 


1 Hence I cannot admit what Liicke, Apokal. II. 458, says about an irregular and 
inconsistent use of prepositions in the N. T. 

2 In close succession perd signifying with takes the Acc..and then the Gen. in Acta 
apocryph. p. 257. 

8 The case is different with éy followed by the Acc.; see Schaef. Dion. comp. p. 305; 
Ross, inscriptt, gr. 1. 37. 


364 § 47, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


326 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


bata: "Avri (Lat. apte), of which the local meaning is (directly) 


before,in front of, over-against, denotes figuratively barter, exchange 
(Plato, conv. 218 e.), in which one thing is given for, instead of, 
another (tooth for tooth, Matt. v.58), and in consequence assumes 
its place. It governs the Genitive, that being the case of (issuing 
from and) exchange (see above, p. 206), e.g. 1 Cor. xi. 15 7) Koun 
avTl meptBoratov dédotar (TH yuvarxt) her hair for, instead of, a 
covering (to serve her as a covering, cf. Lucian. philops. 22; Liban. 
ep. 850), Heb. xii. 16 03 avti Bpwcews pds arrédoTo Ta TPwTOTOKLA 
AUTOD, VS. 2 GVTL THS TpoKEMerns aVT@O yapas Urréueve otavpov (for 
the joy that was set before him, against this setting death on the 
cross), Matt. xx. 28 dodvai thy Yruynyv avtod AUTpOV aVTi TOANOD, 
XVli. 27 €xetvov (aotaThpa) AaBwv Sos avTois avTi euod Kal aod, 
li. 22 "ApyérXaos Bacthever avti “Hpawdov in place of Herod, ef. 

842 Her. 1,108; Xen. A. 1,1,4; 1 Kings xi. 44. Hence avi is the 

ithe. breposition chiefly used to denote the price for, in exchange for, 
which one gives or receives an article of merchandise (Heb. 

882 xii. 16); then, to denote requital (Lev. xxiv. 20) and reward 
(bordering on the causal sense, like the Germ: ob) e.g. av? ov 
(as a recompense) for this (that), i.e. because, Luke i. 20; xix. 44; 
Plat. Menex. 244; Xen. A. 5, 5,14; 1 Kings xi. 11; Joel iii. 5; 
or on which account (wherefore) Luke xii. 8; avti tovtov Eph. 
v. 31 (Sept.) therefore, for this, cf. Pausan. 10, 38,5. Avi is used 
in Jno.i. 16 €XaBoue ... yapwv avti yaperos in a peculiar applica- 
tion, referable, however, to its primary import: grace over, upon, 
grace (Theogn. sent. 344 avr’ aviov avias), strictly grace against, 
Jor, grace, grace in the place of that which preceded, therefore 
grace uninterrupted, unceasingly renewed. ‘ 

b. ’Aro, éx, mapa, and br, all denote isswing, proceeding from 
—the generic.import of the Genitive —but with some diversity as 
respects the previous mutual relation of the objects in question. 
Beyond doubt é« indicates the closest connection ; b7o0, one less 
close; mapa (de chez moi, oxa), and especially azo,! one still 
more distant. Accordingly, these prepositions may be ranged in 


1 The distinction between dé and ék is perceptible in Luke ii. 4 (ef. also Acts 
xxiii. 34); but inJno. xi, 1 (see Liicke in loc.) and Rey. ix. 18 aré and é« are employed 
as synonymous. Cf. also Luke xxi. 18 with Acts xxvii. 34. On the other hand, in 
the parallel passages Mark xvi. 3 and Luke xxiv. 2 ao and é« are respectively used, — 
out of the door, the more precise (and suitable) expression, and (away) from the sepul- 
chre, the more loose; see p. 362. 


/ 


§ 47, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 865 


the following order, proceeding from the most intimate connection 

to the more remote: é€x, t7rd, mapa, avo. Further, tf merely the 
idea of proceeding from is to be expressed, awd is used. If the 
proceeding is definitely thought of as from a person, mapa or v7o 

is required. If the person is to be indicated only in a general 
way as the point of departure, zapa is used ; if represented strictly 

as the efficient, producing cause, t7ro is selected, and hence is the 327 
regular preposition after passives. Finally, the idea of distance Sth et 
and separation attaches itself to ao; so that both amo and ék« 
express disjoining and removal, while these notions are not directly 
implied by vrapd and to. 

IIapa is used properly in reference to objects proceeding from 
one’s vicinity or sphere of power (mapa with Gen. used antitheti- 
cally to mpos with Acc. in Lucian. Tim. 53), e.g. Mark xiv. 43 
Tapayiverar OxA0S ToS... Tapa TOV apyiepéwy from the chief 
priests (near whom, about whom, they served ; ef. Lucian. philops. 

5; Demosth. Polycl. 710 b.), xii. 2 va rapa tov yewpyav AaBy 
amo Tov KapTrov part of the produce which was in the hands of the 
husbandmen ; Jno. xvi. 27 dtt €yo Tapa Tod Ocod €&FNOov (cf. i. 1 

0 Noyos Hv pos tov Oedv), v. 41 (Plat. rep. 10, 612 d.); xv. 26; 348 
Hph. vi. 8; Luke ii. 1; 2 Pet. i. 17. Accordingly, it is joined to Me. 
verbs of inquiring and asking Matt. ii. 4,16; Mark viii. 11; Jno. 383 
iv. 9, of learning 2 Tim. iii. 14; Acts xxiv. 8 (Xen. C. 2, 2,6; 
Plat. Euth. 12 e.), the matter to be learned etc. being viewed as 

in some one’s (mental) possession (azo Mark xv. 45; Gal. iii. 2 
expressing this more indefinitely ; &« twos Xen. Oec. 13, 6 with 
greater precision). It is only in later writers that wapd is used 
after Passive verbs as exactly equivalent to id (Bast, ep. crit. 

p. 156, 235; Hllendt, Arrian. Alex. II. 172). In Acts xxii. 30 vv 
Katnyopeiras Tapa Tov Lovdaiwv, Luke could hardly have said t76 
Tov ‘Iovéaiwy (they had as yet laid no formal charge, had not yet 
taken measures for a regular prosecution), the meaning is: of 
what he is accused on the part of the Jews. Matt. xxi. 42 rapa 
Kuptov éryéveto avTn (Sept.) means: this is from the Lord (divinitus, 
through means under God’s control) ; and Jno. i. 6 éyévero avOpa- 
TOs, aTeoTAadwévos Tapa Oeod: he made his appearance, sent from 
God, cf. vs. 1 %v mpos Tov Oedv. 


In no passage of the N. T. do we find zapa with Gen. used for rapa 
with Dat., as is sometimes assumed in Greek authors (Schaef. Dion. comp. 
p- 118 sq.; Held, Plut. Tim. p. 427). In 2 Tim. i. 18 ecipicxew implies 
the notion of procuring ; (otherwise in Luke i. 30 etpes xapw rapa TO ed 


366 § 47, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


with God.) Mark v. 26 is to be explained by attraction; probably, how- 
ever, in ill. 21 of wap airod are his kindred (those descended from him, 
those belonging to him), see Fr. in loc. cf. Susann. 33. As to wapa in a 
circumlocution for the Gen. see § 30, 38, note 5. That 7a zap tuav Phil. 
iv. 18, and ra wap’ aivév Luke x. 7, are not strictly equivalent to 7a tuav 
(vperepa), adrdv, is obvious; in both passages the phrase is accompanied 
by a verb of receiving (having received the things sent from you i.e. your 
presents ; eating what is set before you from (by) them). 


‘Ex originally denotes issuing from within (the compass, sphere, 

of) something (antithetic to ets Luke x.7; xvii. 24; Herod. 4, 15, 
10; Aesch. dial. 8, 11), e.g. Luke vi. 42 éeBare ri Soxov ex 700 
opParwod (it was év Td odOadrpo), Matt. viii. 28 ee TOv pynpetov 

328 eEepyouevor, Acts ix. 3 wepunotparev aitov has éx Tod ovpavod, 
bhed: Matt. 1.16 é& fs (Maptas) éyevvn0n ‘Incovs, vs. 3; 1 Pet. i. 23. 
Concisely in Luke v. 3 édiSackev éx tod mrotov out of the ship 
(speaking from on board) ef. ii. 35. Allied to this is the use of 

ex to denote the material out of which a thing is made, Matt. 
xxvii. 29; Rom. ix. 21; cf. Herod. 8, 4,27; Ellendt, Arrian. Alex. 

J. 150; then, the mass or store out of which a thing is taken, Jno. 
384 vi. 50 dayety €& aprov, Luke vill. 8; 1 Jnosiv. 13 é« Tod mvevpatos 
avtov dédwxev nuiv he hath given us of his Spirit; further, the class 

to which one belongs, (out) of which one is, Jno. vil. 48 uy Tes €x 
TOV apyYovTwY emlaTevoev ; ill. 1 avOpwiros ex TOV Papicaiwr, xvi. 17 
eimrov éx Tov pabntav (tives), 2 Tim. ili. 6; 2 Jno. 4; Rev. ii. 10, 
344 or the country from which one derived his origin, Acts xxiii. 34, 
ith el. the progenitor from whom one is descended, ‘Epaios é& ‘EBpalov 
(Plato, Phaedr. 246 a., cf. dovrAéxdovaros D.S. exc. Vat. p. 31), ef. 
Heb. ii. 11; lastly, the sttwation, state out of which one comes, 
Rev. ix. 20, or (by brachylogy) out of which he undertakes some- 
thing, 2 Cor. ii. 4 é« woddijs OrXthpews ... éyparya viv. Sometimes 

éx is used in a local sense, like the Latin ex for de (down from), 
Acts xxviii. 4 xpeyapevov To Onplov éx THs xewpos (Judith viii. 24 ; 
xiv. 11; Odyss. 8,67; Her. 4,10; Xen. M. 3,10, 13), Acts xxvii. 29, 

or, with less precision,! Heb. xiii. 10 gayety é« tod Ovavactypiov 
Jrom the altar (what was laid as an offering wpon the altar) ;? 


1 Mark xvi. 3 does not come under this head: see above, no. 5, p. 362. Besides, it 
must not be forgotten that the same relation may be conceived somewhat differently 
in different languages, and yet with equal propriety: e.g. Rom. xiii. 11 éyep@jvat é& 
tmvov, (aufstehen vom Schlafe) arise out of, from, sleep. In Rev. vi. 14 é« is probably 
used designedly, as the mountains are rooted in the earth. It is certainly so used in 
Jno. xx. 1. 

2In the N. T. xataBalvew ee tod dpovs is unique, Matt. xvii. 9 (Exod. xix. 14; 


“ 25 


ae 


§ 47, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 267 


sometimes it denotes mere direction, from, Matt. xx. 21 tva ka6i- 
cow... eis €x deEvov etc., Heb.i. 13 (Bleek in loc.), where the Germ. 
says on (to) the right, zur Rechten, the Lat. a dextra, the Hebr. ja. 
In making such specifications it is a matter of indifference whether 
the mind proceeds from the object to be located (towards itself), 
or from itself towards the object. The former conception the 
Greeks have adopted (é« defds), the latter, the Germans; cf. 
Goeller, Thuc. 8,33. For analogous expressions see Thue. 1. 64; 
8, 51, and Her. 3, 101 olxéovce mpos votov avéwov. When used 
of time, é« denotes the point of departure of a temporal series 
since which something continues to exist, Acts xxiv. 10 é« wo\d@v 
éTav OvTa ce KpiTHy etc. Jno. vi. 66; ix.1; Acts ix. 33; Gal.i. 15, 
é€ ixavod Luke xxiii. 8 (like é« moAdod).’ Here the Greek says 
out of, viewing the time specified, not as we do as a point from 
which something is reckoned, but by a more vivid conception as an 


385 


329 


expanse out of which something extends (as é& jjuépas, é& Erous etc.), Mt et. 


Figuratively, this preposition denotes every source and cause out 
of which something issues (hence é« and 6a are related, Franke, 
Dem. p. 8; Held, Plut. Tim. 331, cf. Fr. Rom. I. 332), and is 
applied either to things or persons, Acts xix. 25; Rom. x. 17; 
2 Cor. ii. 2; iii. 5. Under this head the following applications 
of éx deserve attention: Rey. viii. 11 droOvyjcKkew &« Trav bdaTwv 
(ix. 18; Dio C. p. 239, 27, cf. Iliad. 18, 107), Rev. xv. 2 wav 
éx Tivos (victoriam ferre ex aliq. Liv. 8, 8 extr.), 1 Cor.,ix. 14 
éx Tov evayyediov Syv (Luke xii. 15 ef. with amo Aristot. pol. 3, 3,? 
ex rapto vivere Ovid. Met. 1, 144), Luke xvi. 9 wrouoate éavtots 
dirovs €k TOU papwva Ths adicias, Rom. i. 4 dpicOévtos viod Ocod é& 
avacTacews vexpov (source out of which convincing evidence flows, 
ef. Jas. ii. 18). Its use in reference to persons ® is especially fre- 


xxxli. 1), for which in other passages we find kara. amd Tod dpous, Matt. viii. 1; Mark 
ix. 9; Luke ix. 37. 

1 The N. 'T. passages formerly adduced to show that é« means statim post do not 
establish the assertion. Luke xi. 6 signifies come in from a journey; xii. 86 return 
Jrom the wedding ; Jno. iv. 6 fatigued from (by) the journey; 2 Cor. iv. 6 out of darkness, 
light ete. In many of these passages to render é« immediately after would be altogether 
unsuitable; in others it would obtrude a specification of time where the writer thought 
primarily only of the condition from, out of which, ete. Least of all can é« be translated 
immediately after in Heb. xi. 35. 

* Ziv ek tod Bixatov Demosth. Eubul. 540 b., which Wail quotes in his Clavis, does 
not come under this head. 

8 This use is very extended, particularly in Herodot., see Schweighaeus. Lex. Herod. 
p-192. Further, cf.e.g. Diog. L. 1, 54; Philostr. Soph. 2, 12 ete. and Sturz, Lexic. Xen, 
II. 88. 


345 


Tth ed. 


368 § 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


quent and diversified ; compare besides, Jno. iii. 25 éyévero Sjrnows 
éx Tav walytov “Iwavvov (Plato, Theaet. 171 a.), Matt. i.18 é& 
yaoTpi éyvouca €x mvevpmatos wyiov, Jno. vii. 22 ov éx Tod Maicéws 
€otiv (9 mepttoun), Rom. xiii. 3 é£eus érawov é& adris (éEovcias), 
Jno. X. 32 TWoAra Kara Epya derEa tiv Ex TOD TaTpds pou, Vi. 65 
(Her. 8, 114), xviii. 3; 1 Cor. vii. 7; 2 Cor. ii. 2; Rom. v. 16 
(Fr. inaccurately translates it by per) ; most of all in reference to 
sovereigns, rulers, magistrates, Xen. An.1,1,6; Cyr. 8,6,9; Her. 
1, 69. 121; 2, 151; Polyb. 15, 4, 7. ’Ex is specially employed 
to express the mental state, the disposition out of which something 
springs, 1 Tim. i. 5 (Rom. vi. 17), Mark xii. 80; Phil. i. 16; 
1 Thess. ii. 3 (Plato, Phil. 22 b.; Xen. An. 7, 7, 48 é« THs ~puyis 
didos mv, Arrian. Ep. 8, 22, 18; Aristoph. nub. 86); then the 
occasion, Rev. xvi. 21 éBracdyuncav tov Oeov éx THs TANYHs (but 
not, as Meyer thinks [yet no longer, 4th ed.], in 1 Cor. x. 17) and 
the ground (ratio), Rev. viii. 13 — for each is the source of its 
consequence (Lucian. asin. 46; Demosth. Con. 727 b.) ;1 the basis 

386 of a judgment (from which a judgment is deduced), Matt. xii. (33) 
37 see Kypkesin loc., Rev. xx. 12; Xen. C. 2, 2, 21 and 3, 6; 
Aesop. 98, 4 (by a different metaphor we say judge according to, 
on, cf. év 1 Jno. ili. 19; v. 2), and consequently the standard, 
2 Cor. viii. 11. °Ex, moreover, sometimes denotes the price of a 
thing, Matt. xxvii. 7 nyopacap €& advtav (apyupiwv) aypov (Palaeph. 
46, 8), inasmuch as the property is viewed as accruing to us out 
of the money (given for it), cf. Matt. xx. 2 (where the expression 
is abbreviated). As to é& épywy eivac and similar phrases in Gal. 
iii. 10; Rom. iii. 26; iv. 14,16; Phil. 1.17; Tit. i: 10, s6eeme 
Comment. on the first passage. In general, the phrase eivas & 

330 Tivos partakes of all the diversified significations of the preposition, 

bth ed of, e.g. 1 Cor. xii. 15 du obk eiul yelp, ovK etul éx TOD cHpaTtos ; by 
an opposite conception we say belong ¢o the body. 


That é« never stands for év (as has been assumed even in Greek authors 

346 occasionally, see Poppo, Thuc. 2, 7; 8, 62) is beyond question. As to 

ith ed. the attraction in Matt. xxiv. 17 aipew ra éx 77s oixias see § 66, cf. Poppo, 
Thue. III. II. 493. 


‘Yro signifies from under, out from under (mmm) e.g. Hesiod. 
theog. 669 Zels... U0 yAovos Axe etc. Plato, Phaedr. 230 b. 


1 Other passages adduced (e.g. by Bretschn.) to prove that ée means on account of, 
are to be excluded. Rom. v. 16 is easily referrible to the idea of source. Acts xxviii.3 
may be rendered, gliding forth out of the heat ; recent editors, however, read dé. 


§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 369 


It commonly accompanies Passive verbs!—in order to designate 
the subject from whom the action proceeds, who had the power, 
therefore, to do or to omit it, — and Neuter verbs also which can be 
used as Passives; as, 1 Cor. x. 9 70 Tay ddewy ame@XovT0, Matt. 
xvii. 12; 1 Thess. ii. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 24; cf. Demosth. Olynth. 3, p. 
10 c.; Lucian. Peregr.19; Xen. Cyr. 1, 6,45; An. 7, 2,22; Lysias 
in Theomnest. 4; Pausan.9,7,2; Plat. apol. 17 a. and conv. 222 e.; 
Philostr. Apoll. 1, 28; Polyaen. 5, 2,15, and Porson, Eur. Med. 
p- 97; Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 880. In these instances the forces 
which have produced death, destruction, etc., are regarded as e/fi- 
cvent causes, killing, destroying, etc. ; if, on the contrary, ao had 
been used (cf. wadeiv add Matt. xvi. 21), they would have been 387 
designated merely as that from which a result ensued (occasional 
causes). In the former case, the Active construction, the serpents 
destroyed, etc. might have been directly substituted ; in the latter, 
it would be inaccurate. Cf. the difference between Srartecbat 
amd Tivos and v7ro Twos in Xen. OC. 1, 3, 30; Aeschin. dial. 2, 11. 
See, in general, Engelhardt, Plat. Apol. p. 174 sq.; Lehmann, 
Lucian. VIII. 450; I. 23; Schulzvom Abendm. 8.218. Further, 
v7ro is applied not merely to persons or animate beings, but also 
to inanimate agencies, 1 Cor. vi. 12; Col. ii. 18; Jas. i. 14, ete. 


The meaning of 2 Pet.i.17 dwvjs eveyOeions aitd rodsde bd Tis 
peyadorperods dys is simply : when such a voice was borne to him by the 
exalted Majesty. All other expositions are arbitrary. 


‘Aro means, locally, from in the widest sense — whether what 
has come from anything, may have been previously on, with, at, or 
beside (even in) the object in question, —principally, therefore, 331 
the opposite of évi with the Acc. Diog. L. 1, 24; as, Luke xxiv. 2 Sthed 
evpov' Tov AiGov atroKeKuNopévoy amo Tod pvnuelov, Matt. xiv. 29 
kataBas amo ToD TAolov coming down from the ship (he was on the 
ship), ii. 16 avé8y azo tod béaros up from the water (not out of 
the water), xv. 27 trav Wiylwy Tov TimTovT@Y ato THs TpaTétns 
(they were on the table), Acts xxv. 1 avéBn els ‘Iepocddvpa aro A 


12 Pet. ii. 7 63d THs tay abéouwy avacrpopis épitcato would be an instance of the 
transition if the words were taken as they stand (out of the power of the conduct of the 
lawless, under the influence of which Lot had been left) cf. Iliad. 9, 248 epvecOar bard 
Tpdwy opuuaydod, 23, 86. See, in general, Hm. Eurip. Hee. p.11. But the usual mode 
of connecting 67d ris with katamovotjmevoy is to be preferred. Moreover, in Luke 
viii. 14 also, 57d after a Passive is to be recognized (Active Matt. xiii. 22 afid Mark 
iv. 19), where Bornem. has proposed another, but not a satisfactory (construction and) 
exposition, in which, however, Mey. concurs. 

47 


870 § 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


Kaicapelas from (not out of) Caesarea. In its developed appli- 
cation (whether in the realm of matter or of mind) azo specially 
indicates, 

a) Separating, letting go, desisting, Matt. vii. 23 aroywpette ar 
éuov, Luke xxiv. 31 adavtos éyévero am’ abtov, Heb. iv. 4 Karé- 
Tavoev aro TavT@Vv Tov éEpyov, Rey. xvill. 14 (cf. also atroxpurrew, 
mapaxanuTrrew ato Matt. xi. 25; Luke ix. 45, and the pregnant 
phrases in Col. il. 20; Rom. ix. 3; 2 Thess. ii. 2; Acts viii. 22; 
2 Cor. xi. 3 and the like), and consequently, remoteness, Juno. 
xxi. 8 (Rev. xii. 14; cf. Xen. An. 3, 8, 9; Soph. Oed. Col. 900). 
Far more frequently, 

b) Proceeding from, in any respect, — especially temporal ori- 
gin and commencement from ... forward, since Matt. ix. 22; xxy. 
34; 2 Tim. ili. 15; Acts iii. 24, or the commencement of a series 
Matt. ii. 16; Luke xxiv. 27; Jude 14 (do... éws Matt. i. 17; 
xi. 12; Acts vili. 10, azo ... eis 2 Cor. iii. 18) ; hence the source, 
material, or mass, from which anything comes, Matt. iii. 4 (Lucian. 

888 dial. deor. 7,4; Her. 7, 65), Acts ii. 17 (Sept.) éxyeo amo tod mrvev- 
patos pov, Luke vi. 13; xv.16; Jno.xxi.10; Matt. vii.16. Further, 
amo expresses derivation under manifold aspects Jude 25, descent 
(from a people or country), hence place of abode, sect Matt. 
xxi. 11;-xxvii. 57; Jno. xiv 1; xii. 21; Acts it. 53 xv) Gee 
vii. 18 (Polyb. 5, 70, 8; Plut. Brut.c. 2; Her. 8,114); especially 
does it indicate, concretely, the personal point of departure of an 
efficiency (viewed merely as such, — not as a conscious and self 
moved power, to denote which apa is used with Neuter verbs 
Schulz, Abdm. S. 215 ff.,! and dro? with Passives, in the N. T. as 


1 After verbs of receiving, borrowing, etc. ad merely designates simply and in general 
the whence: Matt. xvii. 25 amd tlywy AauBdvovot TéAN ; it is kings who are the* AauBea- 
votes; tape would have indicated the immediate source, and would have been employed 
in this passage had the tax-gatherers been the AauBdvovtes. In the expression AauBaveuw 
mapa twos, the tis is always viewed as active (as giving or tendering) ; in AquBdvew 
&mé twos, merely as the proprietor. In 3 Jno. 7 the apostle would have used mapd > 
and not amd (rv ever) if the meaning had been that the Gentiles had actually tendered 
a gratuity. In Col. iii. 24 dad Kuplou amortperde Thy avraddoow the reward is indi- 
cated as proceeding from the Lord; map& xvp., which Paul might have employed here, 
would have denoted the Lord’s direct communicating of the reward. On the other hand, 
Christ says in Jno. x. 18 with precision, tadtnv Thy evToAhy EAaBov mapa rod matpéds. 
Paul likewise, in 1 Cor. xi. 23, writes mapéAaBov amb Tov xupiov I received from the 
Lord, not: the Lord himself has (directly, personally, in an amo«déAvyis) communicated 
it to me ; rapa, which some uncial Codd. give, is undoubtedly a correction ; see Schulz, 
as above, 215 ff.; cf. N. theol. Annal. 1818. II. 820 ff. 

2 The Codd. occasionally vary between éré and b7d, as in Mark viii. 31; Rom. xiii. 1, 
which is frequently the case in those of Greek authors also, Schaef: Melet. p. 22, 83 sq. 


§ 47, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 8371 


well asin Greek authors!) e.g. Acts xxili. 21 Tv aro cov érayye- 348 
diay (see above, § 30, 3, note 5), Rom. xiii. 1 ov yap éotw éEoucla ese 
ei uy dvd Ocod (immediately followed by ai 58 odcae bd Tob 3?” 
Oeod tetaypévar eiciv), Matt. xvi. 21 wabeiv ard Tov TpecBuTépwr 389 
(Lucian. dial. deor. 6,5; Plat. Phaed. 83 b.), Mark xv. 45 yvovs 
amo tov Kevtupiwvos, Matt. xii. 38 OéXouev ard cov onpetov ideiv, 
Momaxts; Gal. i. 1; 1 Cor. iv. 5; 2’Cor. vii. 18; 1 Jno. ii. 20; 
iv. 21; Col. iii. 24; 2 Thess. i. 9, —and, abstractly, the efficient 
power itself, and may therefore be rendered through, Acts xx. 9 
KateveyOeis amo Tov vavov, Rev. ix. 18. Further, it signifies the 
occasion, Acts xi. 19 (Poppo, Thue. III. I. 128, 598; Stallb. Plat. 
rep. II. 180), and the motive, Matt. xiv. 26 amo rod doBou éxpakav— - 
Jor fear, xiii. 44; Luke xxi. 26; xxii. 45; xxiv. 41; Acts xii. 14; 
Plutarch. Lysand. 23; Vig. p.581,— the (objective) cause, propter, 
Matt. xviii. 7 (according to some Heb. v. 7 also; see Bleek), or 
prae (in negative expressions), Acts xxii. 11 ov« évéGderov azo 
THs So—ns ToD dwtos on account of (for) the splendor (his not 
seeing arose from the splendor), Luke xix. 8; Jno. xxi. 6, sce 
Kypke in loc. (Acts xxviii. 8 var.), ef. Held, Plut. Tim. 814 (Judith 


Schweighaeuser, Lexic. Polyb. p. 69, and others. Further, we find &1d for iré after 
Passives in later writers more and more frequently (especially in the Byzantines; see 
e.g. Index to Malalas in the Bonn edit.) ; in earlier authors this interchange is on the 
whole rare, yet see Poppo ad Thue. III. I. 158; Bhdy. 224. 

1Jn Jas. i. 13 ard Ocod mreipacouct means simply, J am tempted (through influences 
proceeding) from God, and is a more vague expression than bird God meipaCouoe which 


‘would be identical with @eds meipd¢er we. The words that follow, meipd(er d¢ abtds 


ovdéva, merely show that the apostle has a/so in mind a direct temptation by God (ef. 
Hm. Soph. Oed. Col. 1531; Schoemann, Plutarch. Cleom. p. 237); the phrase ab 608 
is very frequently a sort of Adverb, divinitus. In Luke vi. 18 the words mvevu. axad. 
signify the malady itself; had the expression been e.g. déxAovmevor ard vdowr, it would 
have presented no difficulty. In Luke ix. 22; xvii. 25, drodoniudCecOa ad is simply : 
to be rejected on the part of the elders. That in Acts xii. 20 8:4 7d rpépecOat aibtay Thy 
xdpav ard THs BaotAuchjs (Arist. pol. 4,6) ard is not used instead of b74d, is quite obvious. 
Schneckenburger, ad Jac. i. 13, who asserts that it is, has in general not discriminated 
with sufficient care. As to Matt. xi. 19 see Fr. in loc. and Lehmann, Lucian. VI. 544; 
2 Cor. vii. 13 does not at all come under this head; amé there means from (through 
influence proceeding from). In Acts x. 17 (text. rec.) of émecraduévor amd Tod KopynAlou 
(Arrian. Epict. 3, 22. 23) is simply: those sent from C., the deputation from C.; whereas 
ameot. vrd (which some Codd. [Sin. also] give as a correction) would be more definite : 
those whom he (in person) had sent; cf. 1 Thess. iii. 6 é€A@dyTos Tiwobéou mpds Huas ag? 
iuav (they had not sent him). In 1 Cor. i. 30 bs éyev}On copla juiv amd Oc0d who became 
tous wisdom from God, imé is not necessary, ef. Her. 5, 125 (see also Stallb. Plat. rep. 103). 
Finally, in Jas. v. 4 6 picdds 6 dreatepnucvos ap’ Suey, probably amd was used designedly: 
on your part, by you (though not solely or directly). (Both prepositions occur together 
in significations obviously different in Luke y. 15 according to some Codd. and in 
Rom. xiii. 1, cf. Euseb. H. E. 2, 6, p. 115, Heinichen.) 


Sie § 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


11. 20; Gen. xxxvi. 7 etc.; Her. 2,64). Acts xvi. 33 is a pregnant 
construction : €kovcey ato TOV TAnyaV he washed and cleansed 
them /rom their stripes, i.e. from the blood with which they were 
covered in consequence of the blows. Matt. vii. 16 is evidently, 
Jrom their fruits (objectively) will the knowledge be derived 
(Arrian. Hpict. 4, 8, 10),— (the case is different in Luke xxi. 30 
ab’ éavtav ywooxete, 2 Cor. x. 7, where the subjective power 
whence the knowledge comes is indicated; ad’ éav7od, indeed, 
often signifying sponte). 


Schleusner and Kiihnél maintain that do denotes also 1) in, Acts 

333 xv. 58 tov drootavta ar aitév a6 Tlapdvdias who had left them in 
6thel. Pamphylia. But the obvious meaning is: who had left them (as they 
5390 were proceeding) out of Pamphylia. This is quite different from éy IL, 
349 which might have implied that Marcus remained 7m P. but separated from 
Tthed. Paul, ef. xiii. 13. 2) de, Acts xvii. 2 dueA€yero adrots do. tov ypadday ; 
but this means: starting (in his discourses) from the Scriptures, or draw- 

ing his arguments from the Scriptures (cf. Epiphan. Opp. II. 340 d.); cf. 
Acts xxviii. 23. Nor is the signification de supported by Her. 4, 53. 195 
(Schweighaeuser, Lexic. Herod. I. 77). 3) per, Acts xi.19 diacrapevres 

azo zis OAdvews, which however means owing to the persecution, the 
persecution being the occasion or incidental cause. 4) modo, instar, 

2 Tim. i. 3 dd zpoydvur, see also Flatt in loc. The phrase signifies, from 

my forefathers (Polyb. 5,55, 9), with the sentiments inherited from them. 

On such passages as Jno. xi. 18; Rey. xiv. 20 see § 61, 5 remark p, 557. 


c. “Audi does not occur in the N. T. 

d. IIpo before (in a wider sense than avd), locally in Acts v. 23; 
Jas. v. 9, also Acts xiv. 13, cf. Heliod. 1, 11, 80; Boeckh, Corp. 
inscript. IT. 605. It is more frequently used ¢emporally, either 
with nouns of time, 2 Tim. iv. 21 po yetuevos, Jno. xiii. 1; 2 Cor. 
xii. 2; Matt. viii. 29, and the Inf. of verbs, Matt. vi. 8; Jno. 1. 49, 
or with personal pronouns and names of persons, Jno. v. T apo 
éuod, x. 8; Rom. xvi. 7. It is used figuratively in Jas. vi 12 apo 
mavrwv ante omnia, 1 Pet. iv. 8 (Xen. M. 2, 5, 3; Herod. 5, 4, 2). 
As to the original use of this preposition, explaining its construction 
with the Gen., see Bhdy. p. 231. | 

e. Iepi. The fundamental meaning of this preposition may be 
discerned in its construction with the Dative. With that case it 
denotes encircling, shutting vm, on several or on all sides (closely 
related to dui, which signifies shutting in on both sides). Hence 
it is different from apd, which merely indicates that one object 
is near to, beside another. JIIepi with the Gen. is used in prose 


§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 8738 


almost exclusively in a figurative sense (yet cf. Odyss. 5, 68),! to 
designate an object as the centre of activity, around which the 
activity is conceived as moving, — e.g. contending, drawing lots, 
caring, about anything, Matt. vi. 28; Mark xiii. 82; Jno. x. 13; 
xix. 24;2 and then quite usually deciding, knowing, hearing, 391 
speaking, about, concerning (de, super), see above, p. 3861. At 
other times it is to be rendered by for (as pray for one), Jno. 334 
xvi. 26; Acts viii. 15; Heb. xiii. 18; Luke xix. 37; 1 Thess. i. 2; Shel 
or on account of, Jno. xv. 22; Acts xv. 2; xxv.15; 1 Pet. iii. 18 
(although many traces of about are to be discerned in these cases), 350 
or in reference to, Matt. iv. 6; Rom. xv. 14; 1 Cor. xii. 1; Jno, Med. 
vii. 17; Demosth. Ol. 1, § 11. In the last sense epi with its 
substantive is put at the beginning of a sentence in appearance 
absolutely, as an exponendum (Stallb. Plat. rep. IL. 157 and Tim. 
p- 97), 1 Cor. xvi. 1 wept ris Noyias etc. quod ad pecunias attinet, 
although these words are grammatically connected with wsTrep 
déraga ; and still more perceptibly in 1 Cor. xvi. 12 wept ‘Arodrw, 
TOMAG TapeKddeca avTov, iva EMOn Tpos bas etc. (cf. Papyri Taur. 
1, 6, 31; de is similarly used e.g. in Cic. fam. 3,12). Sometimes 
mepi appears to signify superiority, over and ape prae, as in the 
Homeric wept wavtov eupevar Gddwv (Bhdy. 260).2 Some (Beza) 
have taken it in this sense in 3 Jno. 2 epi travtwv evyoual ce etc. 
above all (Schott) ; Liicke, in support of this explanation, quotes 
a passage from Dion. H. I. 1412 (where, however, Tepl aTdvTov 
means 7 reference to etc.). Still, it seems to me that the impossi- 
bility of connecting wept wavr. with the Infinitives which follow 
(Bengel and BCrus. in loc.) has not yet been shown. 

f. IIpos. The meaning from (something) hitherwards, which 
accords with the primary force of the Genitive, flows from its local 


1 That the local sense around is not without example in (later) prose writers, has 
been shown by Locella, Xen. Ephes. p. 269; ef. Schaef. Dion. comp. 351. Accordingly, 
in Acts xxv. 18 wep) of might be joined with oraGévtes (as is done by Mey.), ef. vs. 7 
TepieaoTnoav of amd ‘TepovoAtvuwy kataBeBnkdores *lovdatot. 

2 Verbs of caring for, etc. are construed also with imép, see brép, below. As to the 
distinction between the two constructions, Weber, Demosth. p. 130 says : mept solam 
mentis circumspectionem vel respectum rei, imép simul animi propensionem ete. slgni- 
ficat. Verbs of contending (about or for anything) have the same double construction. 
Hence in one and the same passage mepi and émép are sometimes contrasted, Franke, 
Demosth. p. 6 sq. 

8 Even here, however, as the construction was originally viewed the preposition 
undoubtedly bears the signification around. Surpassing around all is he who by his 
superiority so encircles, as it were, all, that no one can emerge from the mass. Before 
all marks the relation only on one side; rept, on all sides. 


392 


385 


6th ed. 


Bol 
7th ed, 


874 § 47, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


use, Hm. Vig. p. 863, and is evident also from examples like 76 
Tovevpevov mpos Tov Aaxedayoviov Her. 7,,.209, maoyopev mpos 
avths Alciphr. 1, 20 (Bhdy. 264) and etvas pos twos to be on one’s 
side, cf. ad Herenn. 2, 27 ab reo facere. Hence mpos éeuod, like e 
re nostra, to my advantage, according to my interest, Lob. Phryn. 
20; Ellendt, Arrian. I. 265. IIpos in this sense gives way in the 
N.T. to azo and é«; it is used only once, Acts xxvii. 34 TodTo 
(taking nourishment) zpos tis vwetépas cwtnplas trapyet is for 
(conducive to) your deliverance, strictly, is on the side, as it 
were, of your deliverance. A similar expression occurs in Thue. 
B, OD ov pos THs Ymerépas do&ns non cedet vobis in gloriam. 

oe. “Evi. The primary import of émi, which might justify its 
being used with the Gen., has almost disappeared, unless we choose 
to translate e.g. Luke iv. 29 dpous, ef’ ob 1) modus abTav @KodopNTO 
up from which (on which upwards) was built (D. Sic. 3,473 Polyb. 
10, 10,5). Usually éé indicates the being upon, above, a place 
(point or level), whether the object is regarded as at rest or in 
motion,! Matt. x. 27 xknpt&ate ert Tav dwpdtwv, xxiv. 30 épyopuevov 
ert Tav veheror, ix.2,6; Actsv.15; vill. 28; Rev. xiii. 1; 1 Cor. 
xi. 10; Luke xxii. 21, especially eri rijs ys Copposed to ev Ta 
olpave) cf. Xen. An. 8, 2,19; Arrian. Al. 1, 18,15. Applied to 
waters, it may refer not merely to their surface, Rev. v. 13 éai +. 
Jaracons,” but also to their coasts or banks (ef. Arrian. Al. 1, 18, 
10) Jno. xxi. 1 ét tis Oadacons by the sea, on the sea-shore (Polyb. 
1, 44,4; Xen. An. 4, 3,28; 2 Kings ii. 7, cf. the Hebrew 53)7 it 
is further applied to elevated objects (up) on which something is | 
placed e.g. on the cross Acts v. 80; Jno. xix. 19. On the other 
hand, the local sense of beside, near,’ alleged in N.'T. Lexicons, 


1 Wittmann, de natura et potest. praep. ext. Schweinf. 1846. 4to. In most cases the 
Latin language employs in for it. The German auf, which is applied both to heights 
and to plains, corresponds to the Greek word in many respects. Mark viii. 4 ém epnutas 
entirely resembles the German auf dem Felde, though we do not employ auf in that 
particular phrase. Cf. Matt. iv. 1 aynx On eis Thy Epnuov. 

2 Here belongs also Jno. vi. 19 (it seems that in Matt. xiv. 25 él thy Oa. must be 
read) mepimatety em) ris Oad. to walk on the sea, cf. Lucian. philops. 13 BadiCew ep” bdaros, 
vera hist. 2, 4 él tod meAdyous diadéovtes (Jobix.8). Byitself ém 7. Oad. might indeed 
also be translated on the edge of the sea. This assuredly /’r. Mt. p. 502 did not mean 
to deny. 

8 Even in the case of things on the same /evel,. the Greek, by a conventional or 
ethical conception which we but seldom share, speaks of an above. Above the door (Her. 
5, 92) might, for instance, be applied to a person who stands near the door inside the 
room; on the other hand, under the door to one outside, at the door. Cf. as to the 
kindred brép Bhdy. S. 243. The relation is conceived very differently in different 
languages. 


§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 3875 


cannot be certainly established. In Luke xxii. 40 tézros refers to 
a hill (though we also say on the spot) ; in Matt. xxi. 19 ési rijs 
6000 means on the way ; in Acts xx. 9 émt rijs Oupidos is upon the 
window; in Jno. vi. 21 To qAoioy éyévero em Tis yhs is used of 
the landing of a vessel, and ézi refers to the rising shore; yet see 
what has been said before. 

The figurative meanings of émé are quite plain. It is used, 

a) Of authority and superintendence over etc. ; as, Matt. 11. 22 
Baowrevew eri Iovéaias, Rey. xi. 6; Acts viii. 27 efvae eal traons 
THs yatys, Vi. 3; xii. 20; Rom. ix. 5 eivae eri wavtwv, Eph. iv. 6; 
cf. Polyb. 1, 34,1; 2,65,9; Arrian. Al. 3,5,4; Reitz, Lucian. VI. 
448 Bip. ; Schaef. Demosth. Il. 172; Held, Plutarch. Timol. 388. 

b) Of the subject, the ground-work as it were, of an action ; as, 
Jno. vi. 2 onueta & érroles ert Tov adoOevotytwy Which he wrought 
on the sick (cf. Mtth. 1368); particularly of speaking, Gal. iii. 16 o& 
reyes... @S Eri TOM@Y as Of (Upon) many (speaking of many), 
cf. scribere, disserere super re, and Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 2, 24; 
6, 25; Hpict. ench. 3; Heind. Plat. Charm. 62; Ast, Plat. legg. 
p. 114; Schoem. Plutarch. Agid. p. 76; Ellendt, Arrian. I. 436. 

c) Of presence, before (coram), particularly before judges, mag- 
istrates, etc. (in the phrase bring up before), Matt. xxviii. 14; 
(Mark xii. 9]; Acts xxiii. 30; xxiv. 20; xxv.9; 1 Cor. vi. 1; 
1 Tim. vi. 18 (cf. Ael. 8,2; Lucian. catapl. 16; Dio. C. p. 825; 
Schoem. Isae. 293) ; and then in general, 1 Tim. v. 19 émt papripov 
before (with) witnesses (Xen. Hell. 6, 5, 38; vectig. 83,14; Lucian. 
philops. 22; Matzner, Antiph. p. 165) ;! also 2 Cor. vii. 14 (before, ie. 
in presence of, Titus), see Wetst. I. 443,562; Schaef. Melet. p. 105. 

d) In a related sense, with names of persons, of the reign, Acts 
xi. 28 émi Kndavdiov under Claudius, Mark ii. 26 (Raphel. and 
Fr. in loc.), Luke ii. 2 (Her. 1, 15; Aeschin. dial. 8,4; Xen. C. 
8, 4, 5, ete.; Bremi, Demosth. p. 165; Schweigh. Lexic. Herod. 
I. 243; Sturz, Lexic. Dion. Cass. p. 148); likewise simply of the 
lifetime (é7’ €uod in my time), especially of prominent characters, 
Luke iv. 27 ét ‘EXiooaiov (Xen. C.1, 6,31; Plat. rep. 10, 599 e. ; 
Crit. 112 a.; Alciphr. 1, 5 évt trav rpoyiver, Arrian. Kpict. 8, 28, 
27); also with words denoting conditions and events (Xen. C. 
8, 7,1; Herod. 2,9, 7) Matt.i. 11 él ris petouxecias Baf. at 
the tume of the ewile ; lastly, directly of time, Heb. i. 1 éw écyarou 

1 The phrase in full would be, ém orduaros S00 waptipwy etc. Matt. xviii. 16 ; 2 Cor. 


xiii. 1 (after the Hebrew "B7>2), Even here, strictly, érf means simply with: with 
(on) the testimony of . . . witnesses. 


393 


336 
bth ed. 
302 
Tth ed. 


876 _§47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


TOY nuEepav TovTwv in these last days, 1 Pet. i. 20; 2 Pet. iii. 3, ef. 
Num. xxiv. 14; Gen. xlix.1 (émi rév apyalwy ypévev Aristot. polit. 
8,10; Polyb. 1, 15, 12; Isocr. paneg. c. 44); and in general, of 
that with which something else is connected, Rom. i. 10 émt rév 
mTposevyo@v you at (in) my prayers, 1 Thess.i.2; Eph. i. 16. The 
import of émi is not quite the same in Mark xii. 26 évl tod Barov 
at the'bush, 1.e. concisely, at the passage relating to the bush. 

394 Sometimes ézré in a local sense is also used with verbs of direc- 
tion, and even with verbs of motion (Bhdy. 246) to, towards, forth 
upon; as, Matt. xxvi. 12 Badotca 70 ptpov émt rod cwpatos on 
(over) my body, Acts x. 11 oxedds te... Kabvéwevov eri THs yhs let 
down on (to) the earth, Mark xiv. 35 émimtev emt ris yhs upon the 
earth, Heb. vi. 7. So very frequently in Greek authors, Her. 1, 
164; 2, 78. 75.119; 4,14; 5, 83; Xen. Cyr. 7, 2,1, and Hellen. 
1,6, 20; 3,4,12; 5,3,6; 7,1, 28 etc. ; Sturz, Lexic. Xen. II. 258; 
Ellendt, Arrian. Alex. I. 8339; Wittmann, de natura et potestate 
praepositionis ém. Schweinfurt, 1846. 4to. In this application 
évt originally includes the notion of remaining on, upon, see Rost 
553 (somewhat differently explained in Krii. 802). Such passa- 
ges as Rey. x. 2; Luke viii. 16; Jno. xix.19; Acts v.15 (7iévae 
ézt tov etc.) are traceable, like ponere in loco, to a different view 
of the action. 

h. Mera properly signifies among, amidst (wéoos), Luke xxiv. 5 
ti Entette Tov CavTa peta TOV vexpov ; Marki.13. Hence it denotes 
with (together with), Luke v. 30 peta tov teravdv écOlere, Ino. 
xx. 7; and that in reference to personal association, Jno. il. 22; 
xvill. 2; Acts ix. 89; Matt. xii. 42; Heb. xi. 9,7 and alternate 
action, Jno. iv. 27 Aanely peta Tivos, Vi. 43 yoryyblew pweT aA )raD, 
Matt. xvill. 23 cuvaipev Aoyov peta Twos, cf. Rey. ii. 16, 22; Luke 

953 xl. 18; especially if intellectual or moral, Matt. xx. 2 cupodwvety 

ith ed. wera revos,ii.38; Luke xxiii. 12; Acts vii. 9; Rom. xii. 15; 1 Jno. 
i. 6 (etvas peta Tivos Matt. xii. 30, ef. Xen. C. 2, 4, 7); sometimes 

837 where we should employ on or towards, erga, as Luke x. 87 0 momoas 

tho. 25 Zreos per’ éuod, i. 72 (ox; probably not Acts xiv. 27), for we 
regard the individual towards whom kindness is shown as the 
object, not as the partner, of the act. But pera is applied also to 
things, Luke xiii. 1 ay 70 aiwa ukev peta TOV Ovotwy aitov, Matt. 


1 This distinction was perceived by so early a writer as Bengel (on Heb. vi. 7). 

2 Under this head comes also the Hebraistic wAnpécets pe edpportyns meta TOD 
mposémov cov Acts ii. 28 Sept. (772B°MN), which must not be taken in a merely local 
signification. 


§47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 8T7 


xxvii. 84, especially to express equipment, accompaniment, envi- 
ronment, Luke xxii. 52 éEerndAvOate peta payaipav, Jno. xvill. 3; 
Matt. xxiv. 31 (Dem. Pantaen. p. 628 ¢.; Herod. 5, 6, 19); then 
_of accompanying actions and circumstances, particularly states of 
mind (Bhdy. 255), Heb. xii. 17 wera daxptvov éxfyrijcas (Herod. 
1, 16,10), 1 Tim. iv. 14; Matt. xiv. 7; Mark x. 30; Acts v. 26; 
xvii. 11 édéavto Tov AOyov peta Taons TpoOvpmias, Matt. xiii. 20; 
xxviii. 8; 2 Cor. vii. 15 (Eurip. Hippol. 205; Soph. Oed. C. 1636 ; 
Alciphr. 8, 838; Arist. magn. Mor. 2,6; Herod. 1, 5, 19); lastly, 395 
of the inward connection of spiritual objects, Eph. vi. 23 ayazn 
poeta triatews. In good prose pera never designates the instrument 
as such (Kypke I. 143),}— in 1 Tim. iv. 14 peta ériBécews Tov 
xeipav is with, amid, the laying on of hands (simultaneously with 
the act of imposition), Matt. xiv. 7 we? dpxov interposito jureju- 
rando (Heb. vii. 21) — yet it borders on this signification in Luke 
Xvii.15 peta hdovis weyarns SoEdlwv (essentially equivalent to dav7A 
peyadn or év dovh p.), and perhaps in Acts xiii. 17 ;2 (ef. Polyb. 
1, 49,9 7Opoife pera xnpvypatos, Lucian. philops. 8 Bonbety tive 
peTa THS TéxVNS, aS ovy is used in other writers, at least in poets, 
Bhdy. 8. 214). As to Matt. xxvii. 66, however, see Fr. It never 
signifies after ;° in Mark x. 30 peta duwypadr is, amid persecutions, 
as peta kiwwdvveyv is amid dangers, Thuc. 1,18 a. Kiihnol and 
BCrus. erroneously render wera with the Gen. in Matt. xii. 41 by, 
contra; the meaning is: the men of Nineveh will appear at the 
judgement with this generation, i.e. when this generation appears 
before the judgment-seat, the Ninevites will appear also; for what 
purpose (agaist) we are first told by the words that follow. (The 
use of the Gen. with pera is accounted for by the fact that what- 
ever attends or surrounds any one bears to him a certain relation 
of dependence. ) 

i. Aid. Its primary meaning is through, 1 Cor. xiii. 12 (Plat. 
Phaed. 109c.); but with the idea of going through is connected 
always, in the local sense, that of going forth or out from (thus in 354 
Hebrew and Arabic ya is the only preposition for the local through ; thet. 
ef. also Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 191 éxpevyew Sd’ aidvos, Matt iv. 4 


* 

1'The meaning of peta Avxvov Fabric. Pseudepigr. II. 143 is: with a light, i.e. fur- 
nished with a light, carrying it with him, cum lumine, not lumine. On the other hand, 
cf. Leo Gramm. p. 260 payaipioy émipépetat BovAduevos avedeiv oe eT” avTod, p. 275 ete. 

2 Yet werd here is probably to be understood of the accompaniment: with upraised 
arm, as he held up his arm over them (to protect them). 

8 Fabric. Pseudepigr. II. 593 werd rod €AGety is undoubtedly an error in transcribing, 
for rd éAdeiv. Further, the passages collected by Raphel. Mr. l.c. prove nothing, 

48 ; 


878 § 47, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


éxmopevecbas S14 from Deut. viii. 3, and SveFépyecOas Plat. rep. 

338 10,621 a.);+ hence ova governs the Genitive. It is applied to space 

hel. in simple expressions, Luke iv. 30 adrés SueNOav bia wécou adbtav érro- 
peveto (Herod. 2, 1, 3), 1 Cor. iii. 15 cwOyncerat ... as dua Tupos, 
Rom. xv. 28 azredevoopas dv’ tuav eis Zraviavy i.e. through your 
city (Thue. 5, 4; Plut. virt. mul.%. 192 Lips.), Acts xiii. 49 S:e- 
dépeto 0 Aoyos Se’ dAns THs yopas from one extremity to the other 

396 (throughout, Odyss. 12, 335; Plat. symp. p. 220b.), 2 Cor. viii. 18 
ov 0 €Tawos ... dia Tac@yv THY eKKANGLOV. 

From this local through, in Greek as in all languages, the transi- 
tion is easy to the instrument (whether animate or inanimate), as 
that through which the effect as it were passes (cf. in particular 
1 Pet. i. 7), that which intervenes between the volition and the 
deed, e.g.3 Jno. 13 ob OéAw dia pédXavos Kat Kaddpov ypadev, 2 Jno. 
12 (Plut. vit. Solon. p. 87 e.), 2 Cor. vi. 7; 1 Cor. xiv.9; 2 Thess, 
ii. 2 dua Aoyou, dv émtoToAns, by word of mouth, by letter, Heb. 
xiii. 22 dua Bpayéwv érréotetra tyiv paucis scripsi vobis, see § 64; 
thence it is applied to immaterial objects, as in 1 Cor. vi. 14 sas 
eLeyepel dua THs Suvdpews avTov, Rom. iii. 25 ov poéBero tkaarHpvov 
Sia THs mictews, Rom. ii. 12; Jas. ii. 12 xpivecOar dia vouov; to 
“persons, as in Acts ili. 16 4) lotus 7 bv avtov, 1 Cor. ili. 5 dvaKovor, 
&0 av émvorevoate, Heb. iii. 16 of €&eXOovtes €& Aiyirrtou da Mov- 

, céos. Thus in particular in the expression 6va “Incod Xpictod 
of the (mediatorial) agency of Christ in all its manifestations, 
Rom. ii. 16; v.13 2:Cor.1.'5; Gal.i.13 Eph’ 1.53" Phi 
Tit. iii. 6 ete.,2 as also in dua mvevpwatos (ayiov) Rom. v. 5; 1 Cor. 
xii. 8; Eph. iii. 16. To this (instrumental) use may be referred 
likewise 2 Tim. ii. 2 dca 7oAN@v paptiperv imtervenientibus multis 
testibus, through the interposition i.e. here in the presence of many 
witnesses, Heb. vii. 9 da "ABpadp cat Aevt dedexdtwtar through 
Abraham (that is, in the person of Abraham as representative of 
the whole Israelitish people, when Abraham was tithed Levi also 
was tithed). Aud but rarely indicates the causa principalis,> 1 Cor. 


1 Cf. Kiihner II. 281 and my 5th Progr. de verbis composit. p. 3. 

2 This expression comes essentially under the same head when it is joined to praising, 
thanking, etc. Rom. i. 8; vii. 25; xvi. 27; Col. iii. 17. Not merely the benefits for 
which thanks are offered are procured through Christ, but even the thanksgiving itself 
is offered (if so as to be acceptable to God) through Christ who lives with God and 
continues the work of mediation for his people. The Christian does not give thanks 
in his proper person, but through Christ, whom he regards as the mediator of his prayer 
as well as of salvation. Philippi on Rom. i. 8 is unsatisfactory ; Bengel on the same 
passage is better. 

3 As to the Latin per for a, see Hand, Tursell. IV. 436 sq. Zhe wrong done through 


- §47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 879 


i. 9 (Gal. iv. 7 var.), in other words but rarely seems to be equiv- 
alent to v7é or mapa; but even in such cases it does not designate 355 
the author as such, i.e. as the one from whom something proceeds, ‘ti et. 
but rather as the person through whose effort, or kindness ete. cay 
something accrues to one cf. Gal. i. 1 (without specifying whether 997 
it flows from him directly or iadirectly).!. We may add with Fr. 
(Rom. I. 15): est autem hic usus ibi tantum admissus, ubi nullam 
sententiae ambiquitatem crearet ; thus in Gal. i. 1, after the discrim- 
inating use of azo and dia, dua alone is employed in summing up, 
and employed too of God. Many passages, however, have been 
erroneously referred to this class: in Jno. i. 3, 17 the doctrine of 

the Logos justifies the per of mediate agency, cf. Origen in loc. 
(Tom. I. 108 Lommatzsch) ; in Rom. i. 5 &’ od is explained from 

xv. 15; Rom. xi. 36, owing to the prepositions é« and eds, admits 

no other interpretation ; on Gal. iii. 19 see my Comment.; in Rom. 

v. 2 nobody will be misled by Fr’s. remarks; in Heb. ii. 3 Christ 

is viewed as commissioned by God to proclaim salvation; as to 

1 Pet. ii. 14 see Steiger in loc.? 

To the idea of instrumentality 6a can also be referred when 
used of the state of mind in which one does something, e.g. dv’ d7ro- 
fLovns atrexdéxeo Oar, Tpéyew Rom. viii. 25; Heb. xii. 1; Plut. edue. 
5,3;° probably also 2 Cor. v. 7 dua mictews Twepitratoduev. Hence 
dua serves as a circumlocution for an adjective, 2 Cor. iii. 11 e¢ 76 
KaTapyoupevov (éoTl) dua do€ns (i.e. évdo£ov) Mtth. I. 1353. dua 
is more loosely used of one’s equipment, and of the circumstances 


me, and the wrong done by me, may on the whole express quite the same thing; yet the 
wrong-doer is viewed in these expressions under two different aspects. Probably da 
is employed purposely in Matt. xxvi. 24 7@ avOpadm@ 5V 05 6 vids Tod avOpdrov wapadidorat 
(the betrayer was merely an instrument, cf. Rom. viii. 32) and in Acts ii. 43 awoAAd Te 
Tépata Kal onueta 51a TaY amooTdAwY eylvero, as the efficient cause was God himself 
(Acts ii. 22; xv. 12), cf. 5: xep@y v.12; xiv. 3. That this more precise mode of 
expression is not observed everywhere and by all writers does not invalidate this 
exposition. 

! Nearly to the same effect is the remark of Bremi on Corn. Nep. 10,1, 4. Even 
conceded that dia¢ and rd are wholly identical, it would not follow that Gal. iii. 19 
(vduos) diatayels 50 ayyéAwy represents the angels as authors of the Mosaic Law (as 
Schulthess persisted in asserting). To justify any departure from the plain meaning — 
ordained through angels — far other and more solid reasons must be assigned than those 
urged by Schulthess. 

? At first sight rivas mapayyeAlas @Sdiapev july bid Tod Kuplov *Incod 1 Thess. iv. 2 
appears strange. But as the Apostle was not acting in his private capacity, but as 
moved by Christ, the charges he issued were properly charges given through Christ. 

8 Xen. C. 4, 6, 6 is of a different sort. Also in 2 Cor. ii. 4 éypapa buiv Sia woAAdy 
Saxpiwy is, properly, through many tears. Amid many tears is an expression somewhat 
similar ; see above, werd p. 376 sq. 


880 § 47, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. — 


and relations under which he does something, e.g. 1 Jno. v. 6 

ENMav S0 datos Kai aiwatos came by means of water and blood, Heb. 

ix. 12 (yet see Bleek in loc.), Rom. ii. 27 oé tov dua ypappartos Kab 

TepiTouns mapaBatny ovta with letter and circumcision, i.e. not- 

withstanding that thou wast in possession of a written law etc., 
356 iv. 11; xiv. 20 0 dua mposKoppatos ¢o0iwv he who eateth with offence 
pag (giving offence), (Markland, Lys. V. 329 Reisk.). 

Applied to time, dua denotes, a) During (i.e. within a space 
of time), Heb. ii. 15 81a rravtos tod Sv (Xen. Cyr. 2,1,19; Mem. 

340 1, 2,61; Plat. conv. 203 d.); even though the action takes place 

oth ed. but once or occasionally within the period mentioned, as in Acts 
v.19; xvi. 9 etc. (of which laxer use no instances are to be found 
in literary Greek, Fr. in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 164 sq.). 

b) After, as dc’ érav mrevovwv Acts xxiv. 17, properly interjectis 
pluribus annis, many years intervening,” i.e. after the lapse of many 
years (see Perizon. Aelian. p. 921 ed. Gronov.; Blomfield, Aesch. 
Pers. 1006; Wetst. I. 525, 558), and Gal. ii. 1, cf. Her. 6, 118; 
Plat. lege. 8, 834e.; Arist. anim. 8,15; Polyb. 22, 26,22; Geopon. 
14, 26, 2; Plutarch. Agis 10; Lucian. Icar. 24, also Sept. Deut. 
ix. 11. Lastly, Mark ii. 1 60 #pepav after (some) days (Theophr. 
plant. 4, 4 dc) quepav tiv), cf. dua ypovov Plat. Huthyd. 278 b. ; 
Xen. Cyr. 1, 4, 28 (Raphel, Kypke, and Fr. in loc.). 


The following significations have been erroneously attributed to dia: 

a. Into (in with the Acc.): 1 Cor. xiii. 12 BAéropev dv ésdrrpov is said 
agreeably to a popular notion; the look passes through the mirror, inas- — 
much as the form appears to be standing behind the mirror. 

b. Cum: 1 Cor. xvi. 3 00 émiatoAGv rovrous Téiw areveyKetv etc. is to 
be rendered, by means of letters, so as to recommend them by letters 


(Syriac 12j. bs). To be sure,,the Apostle means at the same time 


1 No one will deny this signification who is not trying to find in the above passage 
of Gal. confirmation of his own previous decision respecting the chronology of Paul’s 
travels. That the preposition can have this meaning becomes plain, whether, with 
Mtth. 1352, we derive it from the notion of distance which 6a in a local sense denotes, 
or from the notion of passing through a succession of points of time (which are thereby 
indicated as travelled through, gone over), Hm. Vig. 856. The assertion that 8: is 
thus applied only to a period of time after which something occurs as its result, is a 
subtilty which has no foundation in usage, and a misapplication of the notion of means 
(itself figurative) to explain a temporal use of the preposition, —a use always most 
closely connected with its local and primary import. Even, however, were the alleged 
restriction to be admitted, it would not be impossible to apply the expression 81a dexar. 
éray in Gal. ii. 1 to a journey the necessity of which Paul felt 7 consequence of an active 
ministry of fourteen years. At least, cara amokdA. in vs. 2 could not be urged as a 
decisive argument on the other side. 

2 Her. 3,157 d:adtwav nuepas déxa, Isocr. perm. p. 746. 


§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 881 


that they themselves should take the letters with them; but still the 
import of the Preposition is strictly preserved. 

ce. Ad: 2 Pet. i. 3 karéoavtos Huds dua ddéys Kal dperys is not ad relig. 
Christ. adduxit eo consilio, ut consequeremini felicitatem etc., but called 
us by (means of ) glory and might, so that in this call God’s power and 599 
majesty were exhibited (vs. 4, cf. 1 Pet. ii. 9). Some Codd. [Sin. also] 
give d0& Kal dpery. 

d. On account of, for dua with the Acc. (only thus in very late writers, 
e.g. Acta apocr. p. 252): In 2 Cor. ix. 13 dia denotes rather the occasion 357 
which gives rise to the dogaéew; whereas what follows, é€rt ty tzrorayp, ith ed. 
means, for i.e. on account of the obedience. In 1 Cor. i. 21 otk eyvw 6 
Kdopos Oia THs codias tov Oedv may very well be rendered: by means of 
their (boasted vs. 20) wisdom (it did not conduct them to this result) ; 
though the interpretation of others, 7 consequence of (sheer) wisdom, if 
taken thus: by the possession of wisdom (see above), is grammatically 341 
admissible. But 8d 77s pswplas which immediately follows is decisive in bth ed. 
favor of the former explanation. Rom. vii. 4 @avaraOnre TO vopw dua Tod 
awpatos Xpirrod is elucidated by verses 1-3: Ye were made dead to the 
law through the body of Christ; with the death of the body of Christ 
(which had reference to the law) ye are made dead (slain) to the law. 
That in 1 Cor. xi. 12 81a ris yuvatkds is not used for dia tH yuvatka (which 
would introduce here an extraneous thought) is the more clear from the 
circumstance that it is manifestly to be taken as corresponding to ék rod 
avopos ; the distinction between éx and é&d is obvious. In 2 Cor. viii. 8 
(Schott) dia rs érép. orovdyjs is to be joined to doxydfwv, see Bengel. 
Heb. xi. 39 (Schott) wavres paptupyPates dia rHs tiotews is, who through 
the faith have obtained a good report. Likewise the rendering per 
(Schott) in exhortations and adjurations (dy), Rom. xii. 1; xv. 30; 1 Cor. 
i. 10; 2 Cor. x. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 12, is entirely unfounded. To exhort or 
adjure one through the mercies of God, through the name of Christ, means : 
referring to, reminding of etc.; dua indicates the consideration held out 
to strengthen the exhortation. 


k. Kara. Its primary import is down, de (down upon, down 
from), cf. catw (Xen. A. 4, 2,17 adrdopevor kata ths TéTpas, 1, 5, 8 
Tpexew KaTa Tpavovs yndodov, Her. 8, 53): Matt. viii. 32 dpunce 
Tada 7) ayékn KATA TOD Kpnuvod (Galen. protrept. 2 Kata Kpnuvarv, 
Dio Chr. 7,99; Porphyr. abstin. 4,15; Aelian. 7,14; Pausan. 10, 
2,2), 1 Cor. xi. 4 dvyp Kata Kedparis éxov having (a veil hanging) 
down from his head; ef. also, in a tropical use, 2 Cor. viii. 2 1 
kata Badous mrwyela poverty reaching down to the depth.’ It 


1 To the same head is to be referred also Acts xxvii. 14 @Bare kat” abrijs &vepos 
tupwvikds. The tempestuous wind rushed (from above) down upon the island. In 
Mark xiv. 3 karéxeev adtod Kata tis Kepadys (holding the flask of ointment over his 


382 § 47, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


400 passes from this to denote the level over (through) which some- 
thing extends; and thus differs essentially from the local év (with 
which by late writers it is often confounded, cf. Ellendt, Arrian. 
Alex. I. 855), as in Luke iv. 14 é&\@ev cal odns Ths meprywpov, 
Acts ix. 31, 42; x. 37, cf. Arrian. Alex. 5,7, 1 and Indiev tage: 

Figuratively, it is applied to hostile movement directed against 
something, as in Matt. x. 85; xxvii.1; Acts vi. 13; 1 Cor. iv. 6; 
xv. 15; Rom. viii. 83 (the opposite of u7zrép Rom. xi. 2; cf. viii. 34; 
2Cor xiii. 8); and is the preposition usually employed to express 

358 this relation. Yet primarily it seems, like the German gegen, to 

ith ed. denote merely thitherwards ; while ¢ avtt, like contra, includes the 
notion of hostility in its focal signification even. In oaths and 
adjurations, as in Matt. xxvi. 63; Heb. vi. 13, 16, cava Ocod (Schaef. 
Long. p. 353 sq.; Bhdy. 238) probably means down from God, 
calling God down, so to speak, as witness or avenger (Kru. 294). 
Kiihner IJ. 284 takes a different view. 

342 1. ‘Trép, in its local signification, denotes the being above (over) 

bth ed. 4 place (properly without immediate contact, Xen. M. 8, 8, 96 
HArtos Too Oépovs b7rép tuodv Kat TOV oTEeyov Tropevopevos, Herod. 2, 
6,19); hence in geographical diction the expression situated above 
a place, imminere urbi, Xen. A. 1, 10,12; Thuc. 1, 137 (Dissen, 
Pind. p. 431). In the N. T. it is used only in a figurative sense: 1 
and 1) most nearly approaching its local import in 1 Cor. iv. 6 
iva pon els bmrép Tov évos puotovoGe, if rendered: that one be not 
puffed up above the other (so that he fancy himself raised above 
the other); still related also to the local sense, 2) to the advantage 
of, for the benefit of, for (the opposite of cara Mark ix. 40; Rom. 
viii. 81) any one (die, suffer, pray, care, exert one’s self, etc., see 

401 Benseler, Isocr. Areopag. p. 164sq.) Jno. x. 15; xi. 50; Rom. v. 6; 
ix. 8 (cf. Xen. A. 7,4,9; Diod. Sic. 17,15; Strabo 8, 165; Eurip. 
Alcest. 700, 711), Luke xxii. 19; 2 Cor. v. 21; Phil. iv. 10; Heb. 
v. 1; vii. 25; xiii. 17; Col.i. 7, 24, probably also 1 Cor. xv. 29, — 
originally as if bending over one to protect and defend him (ef. 


head) good Codd. [Sin. also] omit the preposition. <As to kataxéew kard Twos, see 
Plat. rep. 3, 398 a.; Apollod. 2, 7, 6. 

1 Unless 1 Cor xv. 29 BarriecOa: trép tev vexpav be rendered: cause themselves to 
be baptized over the dead. ‘The passage can only be elucidated by antiquarian research. 
It is strange, however, that Mey. should declare the above explanation inadmissible 
because b2ép occurs nowhere else in the N. T. in a local sense. Might not the preposi- 
tion be used in this most simple local sense in a single passage only ? The comment 
of van Hengel, Cor. p. 136, is worthy of attention, though it, too, contains an arbitrary 
restriction. 


§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 883 


pdxyecOas brép twos Ken. C. 2,1, 21; Isocr. paneg. 14);1 also 
elvat vTrép twos to be for one, Mark ix. 40; Rom. viii. 31; x. 1; 
Blume, Lycurg. p. 151. In most cases one who acts in behalf of 
another takes his place, 1 Tim. ii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 15; hence t7rép 

is sometimes nearly equivalent to avri instead, loco (see, especially, 
Kurip. Alcest. 700) Philem. 13 (Thue. 1, 141; Polyb. 5, 67, 7) 

3) ‘Lép denotes the subject on Cover) which one speaks, writes, 
decides, etc., Rom. ix. 27; Phil.i. 7; 2 Cor. viii. 23 (see Joel 1. 3; 
Plutarch. Brut.1; Mar. 3; Plat. Apol. 39 e.; lege. 6,776; Demosth. 359 
1. phil. p. 20a.; Arrian. Al. 3, 3,11; 6, 2,6; Arrian. Epict. 1, «4. 
19, 26; Polyb. 1,14,1; Dion. H. V. 625; Aeschin. dial. 1, 8; 
Aelian. anim. 11, 20 and often), or for, in reference to, which one 
gives thanks, praise, Eph. i.16; v. 20; Rom. xv. 9, on which one 
prides one’s self, 2 Cor. vil. 4; ix. 2; xii. 5; 2 Thess. i. 4 (cf. in 
Latin swper, in Hebrew 5y; the phrase de aliqua re loqui, too, is 
akin, see under zrep/ ) ;3 hence in general, with regard to a matter, 343 
e.g. 2 Cor.i. 6,8; 2 Thess. ii. 1 go@rdpev ipuas brép ris wapovclas "hel. 
tov Kupiov (cf. Xen. C. 7, 1, 17 birép twos Oappeiv to have full con- 
Jidence in reference to one). Akin to this is the causal signification 

on account of, for the sake of, 2 Cor. xii. 8 (Hebrew 53, yet ef. 
Latin gratia, and Xen. C. 2, 2, 11, and even the German fiir, which 
often suits such passages and presents the same meaning under 
different aspects) Rom. xv. 8 imép adnOelas Ocod (Philostr. Apoll. | 

1, 35; Xen. A. 1, 7, 3, ete.), under which head come also Jno. 

xi. 4 brrép THs SoEns Tod Geod for the glory of God, gloriae divinae 
illustrandae causa, 2 Cor. xii. 19 b7rép Tis buav oixodouys for your 402 
edification, Rom. i. 5; 3 Jno. 7 and, with a difference of application, 
Phil. ii. 13 @eds éotw o évepyav ... trép Ths evdoxias because of his 
benevolence, in order to satisfy his benevolence. In 2 Cor. v. 20 
vmeéep Xpiotov mpecBevouev ... deouela wmép Xpiazov, probably 


1 Hence properly different from epi, which simply means, on account of one, viewed 
as the object, the cause of the death, the prayer, etc. ; see Schaef. Demosth. I. 189 sq. ; 
ef. Reitz, Lucian. VI. 642; VII. 403 sq. ed. Lehm.; Schoem. Isae. p. 234; Mranke, 
Demosth. p. 6sq. In the Codd. of the N. T., however, as in Greek authors, the two 
prepositions are frequently interchanged, see on Gal. i. 4, Rom. i. 8, and the writers them- 
selves do not adhere to the distinction. The two prepositions are appropriately used 
together in 1 Pet. iii. 18 (Eph. vi. 18). Cf. Thue. 6, 78. 

? Still, in doctrinal passages relating to Christ’s death (Gal. iii. 13 ; Rom. v. 6, 8; 
xiv. 15; 1 Pet. iii. 18, etc.) it is not justifiable to render brép judy and the like rig 
orously by instead of on account of such parallel passages as Matt. xx. 28 (/’r. Rom. 
I. 267). *Avri is the more definite of the two prepositions. ‘“Ymép signifies merely for 
men, for their deliverance ; and leaves undetermined the precise sense in which Christ 
died for them. 

8 So with aicxtverbat, ayavaxretv, etc. Stallb, Plat. Euthyd. p. 119. 


384 § 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 


vmép means both times (see de Wette in opposition to Mey.) for 
Christ i.e. in his name and behalf (consequently, in his stead), 
cf. Xen. C. 38, 3,14; Plato Gorg. 515c.; Polyb. 21, 14,9; Marle 
floril. p. 169 sq., see above, no. 2) at theend. Others take the second 
v7rép as in solemn asseverations (Bhdy. 244, whose explanation of 
this use, however, is assuredly erroneous) by Christ, per Christum. 
In Eph. vi. 20 the phrase wpeoBevew d7rép is used in reference to 
a thing: to act as an ambassador for the gospel (in the cause of 
the gospel), cf. Dion. H. IV. 2044; Lucian. Toxar. 34. 


§ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 


a’Ev.! 1) In its local signification (see Spohn, Niceph. Blemmid. 
p- 29 sqq.), this preposition refers to an expanse within the bounds 
of which anything exists. Hence, according to different concep- 
tions of the relation, it signifies 

360 a) First of all im or (when applied to surfaces, heights, etc.) 

ith el. on, Matt. xxiv. 40 év 7 aypa, xx. 3 év 7H ayopd, Luke xix. 36; 
Rev. iii. 21; Jno. iv. 20; 2 Cor. ii. 8. The same relation is fre- 
quently expressed by éé with greater precision. 

b) Then (of many) among, Matt. xi. 11; Acts 11. 29; iv. 34; 
xx, 25;: Rom.i..535 1:Cor. v.01. 3 Pet. v. 1441, 225 
is connected év denoting retinue, Luke xiv. 31 & déka yuidow 

403 aravtjoa, Jude 14 (Neh. xiii. 2; 1 Sam. i. 24; 1 Macc. i. 17); 
as well as clothing (and armor, cf. Eph. vi. 16 ; Krebs, Obs. 26) 

344 Matt. vii. 15; Mark xii. 38; Jno. xx. 12 (Aelian. 9, 84; Her. 2, 

th el. 159; Callim. Dian. 241; Mtth. II. 1340). In amore general use 
ev is applied to that with which one is furnished, which he brings 
with him, Heb. ix. 25 eisépyerau év aiwate, 1 Cor. iv. 21; v. 8; 
2 Cor. x. 14; Rom. xv. 29 (Xen. C. 2, 3, 14). 

c) Less strictly in, at, sometimes of direct cohesion, Jno. xv. 4 
Kiya €av pr) weivyn ev TH dwrrérX, sometimes of mere proximity (by, 
mapa), xabifew (eivar) év Se&a Oceod at (on) the right hand, Heb. 
1.8; vill. 1; Eph. i. 20; Plutarch. Lysand. 436 b.; Dio C. 216, 50 


1°*Ey is used (apparently) with the Gen. in Heb. xi. 26, according to the reading 
admitted into the text by Lchm. from A and other Codd., tay év Alyiarrou Onoavpav. 
Such constructions, by no means rare in Greek authors, must, as is well known, be 
considered as elliptical: év yf Aiyimrrov. Usually, however, only such words as vads, 
éopth, olkos are omitted ; and in the passage in question there is a predominance of 
authority for trav Alyirrov Onoavpay; [so Sin. also]. As to the most ancient use of ~ 
this preposition (in Homer), see Giseke in Schneidewin’s Philolog. VII. 77 ff. 


§ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 385 


‘ Gnuch more frequently thus used in Greek authors, Xen. C. 7,1, 
45; Isocr. panath. p. 646 and Philipp. p. 216; Plat. Charm. 153 b. ; 
Diod. 8. 4, 78; 17, 10, cf.comm. on Lucian. VI. 640 Lehm.; Jacob, 
Lucian. Alex. p. 123). On the other hand, it signifies 7 in Jno. 
x. 23 and Luke ii. 7, probably also in Jno. viii. 20, where yafoduvdk. 
denotes the treasury as an apartment (or locality), and Luke 
xiii. 4, as it was usual to say im Siloam, because the fountain was 
surrounded with buildings ; perhaps also Matt. xxvii. 5, see Mey. 
in loc. That in forms of quoting, as év david Heb. iv. 7; Rom. 
ix. 25 (in Cic. or. 71; Quint. 9, 4, 8) and even Rom. xi. 2 ev’ Hria 
(see van Marle and Fr. in loc. cf. Diog. L. 6, 104), év should be 
rendered by in, is obvious. ' 

d) Before, apud, coram (Isocr. Archid. p. 276; Lysias pro mil. 
11; Arrian. Epictet. 3,22, 8; Ast, Plat. lege. 285), —a rendering, 
however, which is unnecessary in 1 Tim. iv. 15 (where, besides, 
maow must be read without ev). ‘This meaning, however, it bears 
in 1 Cor. ii. 6 (xiv. 11), see above, § 51, 8 (cf. Demosth. Boeot. 
p- 636 a.; Polyb. 17, 6,1; 5, 29,6; Appian. civ. 2, 137),? also 
1 Cor. vi. 2 €v dyiv Kpiverat 6 Kocpos (in the orators & tpiv is 
often used thus for apud vos, judices, see Kypke in loc.), as well 
as év opOarpots tw. before one’s eyes (ante oc.), see Palair. and 361 
Elsner on Matt. xxi. 42—a phrase used in this passage of the Sept. "ot 
figuratively. 

2) By an easy transition é€v is employed to denote temporal 404 
relations, where we use sometimes 7, sometimes on (e.g. of festi- 
vals) Matt. xii. 2; Jno. ii. 23, sometimes-at (with a substantive 
denoting an event) Matt. xxii. 28; 1 Pet. i. 7, also 1 Cor. xv. 52 
ev TH éoxdtyn cadmvyy: at the last trumpet (as soon as it sounds), 
1 Thess. iv.16; Heb. iii. 8,and with the Inf. of verbs, Matt. xiii. 25 ; 
Luke ix. 86; xvii. 11. Where it signifies within (Wex, Soph. 
Antig. p. 167) Jno. ii. 19 it may also be rendered by in (Her. 2, 29), 
and differs then obviously from dua; for év tpiciv juépais (Plato 


1To render ev 7 in Heb. ix. 4 by juxta quam, would be to favor archeology at the 
expense of grammar. Where év in a local sense is joined to personal names (in the 
Plur.), it signifies not so much with as among, in the midst of, (a number, a company, 
etc.). As tol Pet. v. 2 7d év tyiv molunov, Pott’s rendering is quite admissible: the 
Slock existing in the countries where you reside (cf. 5a Rom. xy. 28). Grammatically it 
would be possible also to join 7d év duty to moiudvare (quantum in vobis est, as much 
as in you lies), or, which would undoubtedly be far-fetched, to render 1d év duty rolumov 
the flock entrusted to you, as elvat, keto Oa &v Tit means, to rely on, depend on, one. 

2 In explaining 1 Cor. as above, Riickert pronounces év éuol exactly the same as éuol 
—one of those superficial remarks which, so nakedly stated, one could hardly have 
expected from a scholar at the present day. 

49 


886 § 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 


345 Menex. 240b.) does not mean that three whole days are to be 

6th ed. spent on something, but only that something is to take place within 
that space of time, consequently before its expiration. Cf. besides, 
év & while, during the time that, Jno. v.77; Mark ii. 19; Thue. 6, 55; 
Plato Theaet. 190 e.; Soph. Trach. 925 (év totr@ interea Xen. 
C.1, 3,17; 8, 2,12), é&v ois during which Luke. xii. 1. Closely 
related to the temporal signification is the év of subsistence (i.e. 
positive and continued existence) Heb. vi. 18 év ots aédvvatov wWev- 
caclar Oeov whereupon, these two assurances being matters. of 
fact, etc., Rom. ii. 12 €v vou@ japtov under (during the existence, 
while in possession, of ) the law ; — also of condition, Luke viii. 48 
yuri) ovca év pvoet aiwatos, Rom. iv. 10; Phil. iv. 11 (see Elsner 
in loc.; Kihner Il. 274), and that, too, inward, Luke iv. 36; Tit. i. 6, 
particularly of the state of mind or feeling, 1 Tim. ii. 2; 2 Cor. 
li. 1; viii. 2; Lukei. 44,75; Eph.i. 4 (Heb. xi. 2); 2 Pet. ii. 3; 
lastly, —the ev of occupation, 1 Tim. iv. 15 év rovrtow tos, Col. 
iv. 2 cf. Eph. vi. 20 (Mey. in loc.), neut. év.ofs Acts xxvi.12. Cf. 
Xen. C. 8, 1,1; 5,2,17; Soph. Oed. R. 570; Plato Phaed. 59a. 
and Stallb. in loc. 

3) The figurative use of év, to which we have already made 
some incidental reference, is extremely diversified, perceptibly 
exhibiting the progressive deterioration of the language as well 
as a Hebrew coloring. For év is used to indicate not merely that 
in which something else is (ideally) contained, consists, appears 
1 Pet. iii. 4; Eph. iv. 8 (ii. 15), 2 Thess. ii. 9 (1 Cor. xi. 25), 
Phil. i. 9, but also, with great variety of application, 

a) The basis on which, or the sphere (range, personal or imper- 
sonal) im which, some power acts, 1 Cor. ix. 15 wa otrw (vs. 13 f.) 
yévntas év éwoé that it should be so done on me (in my case), iv. 2, 

405 6 év jpiv paOnte learn in us, Jno. xiii. 85 €v TovT@ yywoorTat, Xen. 
C.1, 6,41 (Luke xxiv. 85; 1 Jno. ili. 19), Rom. xiv. 22 6 py 
Kpivov év @ (év TobT@ 0) SoKxiwager, 1 Thess. v. 12 comiavtes ev tyiv 
who labor upon you, Rom. i. 9 Natpevew év TH evayyedio (1 Thess. 
iii. 2 cuvepyos év TO evayyedio var.), 1 Cor. vii. 15; to denote an 
ethical relation, 2 Cor. iv. 2 mepirratobvtes év Tavoupyia (Eph. ii. 8, 

862 10; v. 2), Rom. vi. 2 &jv év auapria (Fr. in loc.), Col. ili. T (Cie. 

ithed fom. 9, 26), ef. 1 Cor. vi. 20; 2 Thess. i.10; 1 Jno. ii. 8; ina 
more extended sense, of the object iz (on, at) which one rejoices, 
glories etc., yaipew, kavyacbar, év see § 38 p. 232., 

b) The measure or standard (Thue. 1. 77; 8, 89) in, according 

to, which something is executed, Eph. iv. 16 (Heb. iv. 11), cf. the 


§ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 387 


Hebrew 3. Many understand it so in Heb. x. 10 €v @ @edjpare 
Hryvacpevor eopev according, in conformity, to which will. Here, 
however, év is more precise than cata: It is founded zm the will 
of God, that we are sanctified through Christ’s sacrificial death. 
In no other passage does the meaning secundum occur, although 
even the most recent N.T. Lexicons give copious examples in 
support of it. “Ev éuoi according to my judgment, 1 Cor. xiv. 11, 
is properly: to me (in my conception) cf. Wex, Antig. p. 187. In 
Rom. i. 24; viii. 15; xi. 25 (var.); Phil. it. 7 & denotes condi- 
tion. 1 Thess. iv. 15 may be translated: this I say unto you in 
a word of the Lord, cf. 1 Cor. ii. 7; xiv.6. In wepurarety év copia 
and similar phrases, codia is not represented as a rule according 
to which, but as an ideal possession, or even a sphere within which 
to walk (see above). To understand év Xpict@, év Kkupio, as mean- 
ing according to the will or example of Christ, would be to take 
a flat view of the apostle’s conception. Lastly, 1 Tim. i. 18 wa 
oTpaTevn ev avTats (Tais mpodytelas) THY Kady oTpateiav is 
probably to be interpreted, conformably to the figure, 72 proph- 
esyings, equipped with them so to speak (as the actual warrior 
is in arms). 

c) The (external) occasion, Acts vii. 29 éduyev év TO AOYO TOUTHO 
at (on) this saying, Xen. equestr. 9,11; hence sometimes the 
ground, cause, Matt. vi. T év 77 wodvdoyla avTav elsaxoveOncovTat 
on account of their much speaking (properly on their etc.), ef. 
Aelian. anim. 11, 81; Dio C. 25, 5, and év tovrvw Jno. xvi. 30 there- 
Sore, probably also 1 Cor. iv. 4 (ef. Plutarch. glor. Athen. c. 7 é& 


ie 


Toutos) ; €v @ (for év rovTw Ot) because Rom. viii. 8 see Fr. In 


c 


many languages, however, a concomitant is assigned thus as a 
cause: in Latin, propter strictly means near; and the German 
weil (because) is properly a particle of time (during). ‘Ey in 


1In Heb. xi. 2 év ta’ty (7H wiore:) denotes not the ground, but the (ideal) posses- 
sion : in hac (constituti), cf. 1 Tim. vy. 10 (Jno. viii. 21). In Heb. ii. 18 év & wérovOev 
is undoubtedly to be resolved by év rovrw & in co quod, see above p. 159. This same 
meaning occurs in 1 Pet. ii.12. In Heb. vi. 17 év ¢ may be referred to épxos preceding, 
though (as sometimes é¢’ @) the rendering quapropter, quare, would not be inappropriate. 
In Rom. ii. 1 év ¢ may be rendered dum, or better, with the Vulgate, in quo (in qua re) 
judicas ete., which gives a sense quite in point, cf. Fr. In Luke x. 20 év rovT@... O78 
means, at this (rejoice) that, cf. Phil.i. 18. I am not aware of there being in any Greek 
author an unquestionable instance of év TovT@, év 6, in the sense of therefore, because. 
The passages adduced in Sturz, Lexic. Xenoph. II. 162, admit of another meaning. Xen. 
A. 1,3, 1—a passage which Kypke, II. 194, refers to this head — has in the best editions 
ém) rovrw. Likewise Plat. rep. 5, 455b., where Ast explains ¢v ¢ by propterea quod, is 
susceptible of another exposition ; see Stallb. in loc. 


346 
bth ed. 


406 


388 § 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 


368 the sense of propter is never joined to names of persons (see my 

ith el. Comment. ad Gal. i. 24, cf. Exod. xiv. 4);! and in general too many 

passages have been referred to this head, as Hph. iii. 18; Jno. 

' viii. 21; Jas. i. 25; 2 Cor. vi. 12; Heb. iv. 11. 

d) The instrument and means (principally in the Rev.), not 

merely (as in the better Greek prose authors, see Bttm. Philoct. 

p- 69; Boeckh, Pind. II]. 487; Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 195, and the 

uncritical collections in Schwarz, Comment. p. 476; Georgi, Vind. 

153 sq.) where the German 7n also (or au/’) is admissible, as xcalew 

347 ev mupt Rev. xvii. 16 (1 Cor. iii. 18), cf. 1 Mace. v. 44; vi. 31 

bthel. (Scar év wédaus Xen. A. 4, 8,8; cf. Judg. xv. 18; xvi. 7; Sir. 

xxvill. 19; Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 104, carvrrew év iwatio Ael. anim. 

11, 15), perpety év wétpw Matt. vii. 2, ariGeuv ev drat Matt. v. 13; 

Rev. vil. 14; Jas. iii. 9; Heb. ix. 22, but also, through the influence 

of the Hebrew 3, in circumstances quite different from this, where 

in Greek authors the Dative would be employed alone as the casus 

instrumentalis, as Luke xxii. 49 ratdocew ev waxyaipa, Rey. vi. 8 

aTrokTetvat év pouaia, xiii. 10; xiv. 15 kpageww év peyarn pov (2 Pet. 

ii. 16), Matt. vii. 6 xataratety év tois mooiv, Luke i. 51; Mark 

407 xiv.1; Rom. xv. 6, especially in the Rev. (ef. Judg. iv.16; xv. 15; 

xx. 16, 48; 1 Kings xii. 18; Josh. x. 35; Exod. xiv. 21; xvi. 3; 

xvii.5,13; xix.138; Gen. xxxii. 20; xli. 36; xlviii. 22; Nehis10; 

1 Mace. iv. 15; Judith ii, 19; v..9;* vi. 4, 12) ete!) 7" Yetaies 

constructions occasionally occur even in Greek authors; as, Himer. 

eclog. 4,16 év Eher, Hippocr aphor. 2, 36 év dappaxeinot Kabai- 

364. pecOat, Malal. 2 p. 50.2 °Epv is so used with personal designations, 
Tih ed. 


1JIn 2 Cor. xiii. 4 doOevoduev ev adtg, as frequently évy Xpio7@ (so variously under- 
stood by expositors), denotes fellowship with Christ, the relation of eiva: év Xpiotg@ 
(see below, p. 889). The apostle is not weak for Christ’s sake (out of regard as it were 
for the interest of Christ, to prevent the possible falling away of the Corinthians) ; but 
weak in Christ, i.e. in and conformably to (apostolic) fellowship with Christ (who 
likewise was in a certain sense aoOevhs; see what precedes). The phrase designates 
concisely a state which results from being in Christ; just as the (jv and Suvatby civ are 
referred to fellowship with Christ (ody). Just as little does Eph. iv. 1 6 dé€cusos ev xupio 
mean the prisoner for Christ’s sake. Somewhat more remote is Phil. i. 8 émir00& mavtas 
buas ev omrAdyxvots Xptorod *1., see Bengel. 
2 Tt would be a mistake to suppose that in Eph. ii. 15 (§ 31, note 1, p. 220) and vi. 4 év 
‘denotes the instrument. In the latter passage matdela kal vovecia ruplov is the sphere 
in which the children are trained, cf. Polyb. 1,65, 7. Even in the expression &AAdooety 
vt ty tut Rom. i. 23, I cannot with Fr. adopt the meaning per, nor do I think that the 
Hebrew 3 with "2M is to be so understood. To change something in gold is either an 
abbreviated expression, or gold is conceived as that 7» which the exchange is effected. 
The év of price is similar ; see above and p. 390. 
3 Many passages that might be adduced under this head from Greek authors, are to 


§ 48, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 389 


Matt. ix. 34 év 7é apxovts THY Sampoviwy éxBarrEWv Ta Satpovia, Acts 
Xvil. 381 xpivew év avdpi in a man, cf. Thue. 7, 8,2; Mtth. I. 1341, 
not Jno. xvii. 10; 2 Thess. i. 10, or by any means Acts xvii. 28.1 
The phrase duocas év tive Matt. v. 34 ff. does not signify jurare per 348 
(see Fr. in loc.), but more simply: swear by (on) something. So Med. 
likewise in other passages év does not properly signify through : 
1 Cor. vii. 14 ylactas 0 avjp o amiatos év TH yuvatKi means, he 
is sanctified in the wife, —the foundation rather than the means 
of sanctification being indicated. In Rom. xv. 16 év qvevpare aylw 
and not dua mv. ay. is employed designedly, iz the Holy Spirit 
(an internal principle). Related to this is 1 Cor. xv. 22 é& 7é 
"Adam twavtes avroOvncKover, Acts iv. 2 év “Incod thy avactacw tH 
éx vexpav Katayyérrew.. Least of all does é€v Xpiot@ (xupiw) ever 
signify per Chr. (Fr. Rom. I. 397, the precise expression for which 
is da “Ino. Xp.), Rom. vi. 11 Savres 7H Oew ev Xp. ’I. (the Chris- 
tian lives not merely through Christ, beneficio Christi, but 7m Christ, 
in soul-nourishing fellowship with Christ), vi. 23; 2 Cor. ii. 14; 
but this phrase invariably refers, for the most part in an abbre- 


be otherwise explained, as dpay év ép@aAuots Lucian. Phalar. 1,5, év duuacw broBAémew 
Lucian. amor. 29 (cf. Wer, Antig. I. 270), Porphyr. de antro Nymphar. p. 261 augopéwr, 
év ois ... apudueba, Lucian. asin. 44 ws TeOvnkws ev Tais mAnyais (under the blows), Plat. 
Tim. 81 c. teOpaupevns ev yddaxts brought up on milk (cf. Jacobs, Athen. p. 57). In 
Lucian. conscr. hist. 12 for év dkovtiw dovevew recent editors on the authority of MSS. 
give éy) ax. ¢.; on the other hand, in Lucian. dial. mort. 23, 3 all the Codd. but one 
have Ka@ixduevov év TH paBdw (not so Ael. 2, 6), yet Lehmann considers the preposition 
even in this passage as suspicious (cf. Lucian. Lapith. c. 26). See, besides, Engelhardt, 
Plat. Menex. p. 261; Dissen, Pind. p. 487. 

1Tn Jno. xvii. 10 deddEaoua ev adbrots undoubtedly signifies more than 8? airav. He 
would have been glorified through them, if they had merely accomplished some external 
achievement conducive to the glory of Christ; he is glorified in them, in so far as they 
in their own persons, in themselves, glorify Christ. In the same way to live and have 
one’s being in God, appears to express man’s subsistence, his being rooted as it were, 
in the divine power, with greater precision than could be done by da. When ev and 
did are joined together in one and the same sentence, di expresses thus the external 
means, while évy points to what was wrought zn or on one’s person, and as it were cleaves 
to him, Eph. i. 7 év é (Xpiotg@) Exouev thy awodvtpwow 61a Tod aluatos avrod (where 
Mey. is wrong), iii. 6. Even when things, and not persons, are, in question, the dis- 
. tinction between éy (referring to mental states or powers) and did (of the means) is 
perceptible; as, 1 Pet. i. 5 robs ev Suvduer Oeod Opovpovmeévous did wictews, see Steiger in 
loc., i. 22 iyyvindtes ev tH traxoq THs GAnOelas bia mvevuatos, Heb. x. 10. Lastly, pas- 
sages in which év and 8:¢ in reference to things are interchanged in the same proposition, 
Col. i. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 4 ff. 8; 1 Cor. xiv. 19, merely show that both prepositions are 
identical as respects the sense. Even éy in Matt. iv. 4 év mavt) pfars does not appear 
to be exactly equivalent to éwi in ém’ &ptw udvw; but the latter (émi) denotes the basis, 
ev the (spiritual) element, of life. At all events, through or by means of would be an 
inaccurate translation. 


390 $48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 


viated way, to the beg in Christ eivas év Xpict@ (1 Thess. ii. 14; 
Rom. viii. 1; xvi. 11; 2 Cor. v.17; Gal. i. 22), and Luther’s 
‘‘ barbarous ”’ translation (Fr. Il. 85)1 is to be retained. So like- 
wise in 1 Cor. xii. 38 év wvevparte Geod Nadoyv is to be rendered quite 


365 literally, speaking in the Spirit of God, the element in which the 
ihel. sneaker lives (Rom. ix. 1; xiv. 17; Col. i. 8). 


409 


e) The price, after the analogy of the Hebrew, Rev. v. 9 dyo- 
paver €v TH aiwate (1 Chron. xxi. 24). The value of the thing 
purchased is contained im the price (to which the é« of the price 
then corresponds). 


Even in the most recent Lexicons the significations of this preposition 
have been unwarrantably multiplied or its real significations incorrectly 
applied to passages of the N.T. The interpretations which have been 
given to the phrase €v dvozari twos in particular are Protean. The év here 
causes no difficulty, for it simply means 7x. And something takes place 
‘in a person’s name’ when it is comprehended or embraced in his name, 
is to be set down to his personal activity, cf. Acts iv. 7 (not to his who is 
the nearest, the immediate, subject, cf. Jno. vy. 43). Only the various verbs 
which are limited by éy évéuare require the expositor’s attention, in order 
that the various senses may be traced back severally in the simplest 
manner to the literal meaning of the phrase. ‘This task has not yet 
been performed satisfactorily (yet better by Harless, Eph. S$. 484, than by 
van Hengel, Philip. p. 161 sq.), not even by Mey. Phil. ii. 10 seems to 
require separate treatment: ovoya here refers to dvoua in vs. 9, and év 
évopare denotes the name upon which those that bow the knee unite, on 
which united all (zay yévv) worship. ‘The name which Jesus has received 
moves all to united adoration. In Tit. iii. 5 év does not indicate the jinis 
or consilium; but épya 7a év Sucatoovvy mean, works performed in the 
spirit of a dékaos; as to Luke i. 17; 1 Cor. vii. 15 see below. In Mark 
ix. 50 cipnvevere ev GAAHAots, the rendering erga is not necessary ; we, too, 


1 In so far as the Christian abides (by faith) in living (inward, hence ev) fellowship 
with Christ, he will do everything in the consciousness of this fellowship, and through 
the strength which this fellowship confers, i.e. in Christ, in the Lord; as a Christian, 
in a Christian spirit, etc., as the words are frequently rendered, expresses much less than 
the pregnant phrase in Christ. So in Rom. xvi. 12 who labor in the Lord, conscious of 
their fellowship with the Lord (unworldly xomday is meant), 1 Cor. xv. 18 who fell asleep 
in Christ, in conscious, steadfast fellowship with Christ (ef. 1 Thess. iv. 16; Rev. xiv. 13), 
Rom. ix. 1 (a passage which even Bengel misunderstood) speak the truth in Christ (as 
one living in Christ), xiv. 14 persuaded in the Lord (of a truth of which one in living 
union with Christ is assured). As to 1 Cor. iv. 15 see Mey. In the same way etpione- 
o0a év Xp. Phil. iii. 9 is to be explained. See besides, Rom. xv. 17; xvi. 2,22; 1 Cor. 
vii. 389; Phil. iv. 1 (Eph. vi. 1),1 Pet. v.10. Fr. Rom. II. 82sqq. is essentially right, 
though his remarks are not free from misapprehensions nor from unnecessary matter. 
See, besides, v. Hengel, Cor. p. 81. 


§48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 891 


say: among (one another) yourselves. The following interpretations appear 
still more inadmissible : 

a. ex,' Heb. xiii. 9 év ofs otk dPeAnOyoay ot repirarjnoavtes unde (Schott) 
nihil commodi perceperunt (cf. ddeActoOau do Aeschin. dial. 2,11). If év 8349 
ots is to be joined to dpeA7O., the preposition indicates the profit that would Sth el. 
have originated therein or attached thereto, Xen. Athen. rep. 1, 3; Demosth. 
Pantaen. 631 a.; but év ots belongs to repurarjcavres. Matt.i.20 70 év airy 
yevvnfev means, that which has been begotten in her (in ejus utero). 

b. pro, loco, Rom. xi. 17 (Schott) évexevrpicOys év airots (kAddous) means: 366 
grafted on the branches (of which some had been cut off). Tth ed. 

ce. with. In Acts xx. 32 év rots ipyracpévors signifies, among (with) the 
sanctified. Acts vii. 14 perexadécaro Tov rarépa atrod “TlaxoB ... ev Wuxats 
éBdou. means, (consisting) 7m seventy souls; 2 is used in the same way 
in Deut. x. 22; I do not, however, know of an instance in a Greek author. 
Fr.’s explanation of these words (ad Mr. p. 604) appears to me too far- 
fetched, and it has been rejected by Wahl also. In Eph. vi. 2 yrs éoriv 
évroAi) zpwTn ev éxayyeAia undoubtedly means not merely, annexa, addita 
promissione, but the first in promise, i.e. in point of promise (not év rage 
Chrysost.). So also Mey. 

d. by (of). In Eph. iv. 21 eye év aired edidayOnre if ye were taught in 
him is closely connected with droféoGa etc. following, and consequently 
means, conformably to fellowship with Christ, as believers in Christ. 

As to év for «is, see § 50, no. 4, p. 413 sq. 


b. Suv with as distinguished from peta indicates a more inti- 
mate union;? as, among persons, partnership in calling, faith, 
fortune, etc. Acts ii. 14; xiv. 4, 20; 1 Cor. xi. 32. Hence it is 
generally used in reference to spiritual fellowship, as that of be- 
lievers with Christ, Rom. vi. 8; Col. ii. 18, 20; iii. 8; 1 Thess. 
iv. 17: v.10; or that of believers with Abraham, Gal. iii. 9 
(cvy denoting in all these cases not mere resemblance, but actual 
association). Then in reference to things it denotes powers com- 
bining and co-operating with a person, 1 Cor. v.4; xv. 10. It 
would be extended to a less intimate connection in 2 Cor. viii. 19 
with the collection ; yet here év seems the preferable reading. On 410 
the other hand, cf. Luke xxiv. 21 ovv waou tovtous tTpitny TavTnv 
neépav ayer onpepov along with all this, i.e. joined to all this is the 
additional fact that etc. (Neh. v. 18; ef. Joseph. antt. 17, 6, 5). 


1 Fischer, Weller. p. 141, adopts this meaning even for aivew év apytpe, xpuc@ ete. 
(Isocr. paneg. c. 30; Diog. L. 1,104, bibere in ossibus Flor. 3, 4,2). With equal 
reason might it be asserted that in German auf is the same as von because we say auf 
silbernen Tellern essen, which, according to the analogy of ‘aus silbernen Bechern 
trinken,’ is equivalent to ‘ von silbernen Tellern.’ 

2 Krii. 287 “ovby tm denotes rather coherence ; werd twos, rather co-existence.” 


392 § 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 


c. “Eri. The primary, docal, import is wpon, above, (applied 
both to heights and plains) :! Matt. xiv. 11 jvéyOn 7) Kedar emt 
mivaxt, Mark i. 45 és’ épypors totrows (see above, émi with Gen. ; ef. 
avayew eis THY épnuov Matt. iv. 1), vi. 89; Luke xxi. 6; Rev. 
xix. 14, also Jno. iv. 6 éxt 7H wnyh on (at) the well (the rim of 
the well rises above the well itself), Rev. ix. 14 (Xen. An. 1, 2, 

350 8; 5,38,2; Oyr.7,5,11; Isocr. paneg. ¢. 40; Dio C. 177, 30; see 

bth ed. above, § 47 ¢.).2 Sometimes it signifies at (on) Jno. v. 2 émt rH 

367 mpoBatixn at the sheep-gate, Acts iii. 10,11; Matt. xxiv. 33 én 

7th ed Pupacs (Xen. C. 8, 1,33, yet see note ® p. 374); it is applied also in 
this sense to persons, Acts v. 85 mpaocew te émi tive inflict some- 
thing on one (do something to), ef. Spay te eat tux Her. 3, 14; 
Ael. anim. 11, 11. Lastly, it signifies (contiguity) at, with either 
in reference to place (apud) Acts xxviii. 14 ém adrois émipetvat, 
or to time Heb. ix. 26 émt cuvrerela Tév aidvev sub finem mundi ; 
and so Phil. i. 3 evyapiotd 7d Oe@ ert aon TH pvela budv on every 
remembrance of you, Mark vi. 52 ov cuviKay ert Tots aptows, 2 Cor. 
ix. 6 oreipew, Oepifev ém’ evrorylars with blessings, so that blessings 
attend ; and in another application in Heb. ix. 15 ray éri tH mparn 
diabnkn TapaBdacewy with (under) the first covenant (during the 
existence of the first covenant). In this sense it is applied also 
to persons, Heb. x. 28 (Sept.) ézt tpict waptvor with (before) three 
witnesses, adhibitis testibus. It likewise ifdicates what is closely 
connected (in time), what follows on some event, Xen. C. 2, 3, 7 
avéctn er avt® Pepavyras directly after (Appian. civ. 5,3; Paus. 
7, 25,6; Dio C. 325, 89, and 519, 99; cf. Wurm, Dinarch. p. o9 ste 
Ellendt, Arrian. Alex. I. 30). Some explain in this way Acts 
xi. 19 ao ths Ordpews THs yevowevns ert Zrepavw (see Alberti 
in loc.) ; but éaé there means rather wpon (on account of) or 
against (Matthii in loc.), cf. Schaef. Plutarch. V. 17; Maetzner, 
Antiph. p. 288. 

411 Figuratively évi denotes, in general, the foundation on which 
an action or state rests, Phil. iii. 9; so in Matt. iv. 4 Gjv ém’ dpt@ 
Sept. (corresponding to év pjyare) after the Hebrew bz mn Deut. 


1 According to Krii. 803 émt with Gen. indicates rather an accidental and more loose 
connection ; émf with Dat., the notion of belonging to. 

2 The signification pon is perceptible also in Luke xii. 53 @rovrat... mathp é¢ vig 
kal vids én) marpt the father will be upon him, that is, as a load, oppressing, agreeably 
to the vulgar idiom; cf. the German, Vater und Sohn liegen sich auf dem Halse. 
Against, however, here expresses the meaning correctly. I cannot, however, decide 
with Wahl to apply the same meaning to Luke xxiii. 38. Rom. x. 19 is of quite a 
different sort. | 


§ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 393 


vill. 5 (though it is thus used also in Greek authors, Plato Alcib. 
1, 105c.; Alciph. 3, 7; cf. swstentare vitam). Here belongs also 
éml TO OvomaTt Tivos (Lucian. pisc. 15; cf. Schoem. Isae. p. 463 sq.) 
to do something wpon the name of some one, i.e. in doing it to 
rely upon, or have reference to, the name of some one. ‘The ex- 
pression has various applications in the N. T.: évi 7@ ovoparte ‘Inc. 
Xp. to teach upon (in) the name of Christ (Luke xxiv. 475 Acts 
iv. 17; v. 28, 40), i.e. by referring to him as the source of doctrine 
and authority ; to cast out demons upon (in) the name of Christ, 
Luke ix. 49, i.e. making the efficacy of the exorcising depend on 
his name (uttered on the occasion as a solemn form) ; baptism 
upon (in) the name of Christ is baptism founded on the acknowl- 
edgment of his name, Acts il. 38; to receive any one upon (in) 
the name of Christ, Matt. xviii. 5, ie. because he bears his name, 
‘confesses him, etc. 

Special senses of éz/ are 

a) Over, of superintendence, Luke xii. 44 éwi rots trapyovar 
kataotnoe. avtov, cf. Xen. C. 6, 3, 28 (as elsewhere with Gen. 
Lob. Phryn. p. 474 sq.). 

b) Over, to, of addition to something already existing, Luke 
ii. 20 mposéOnxe kal todTo emt mwaot, Matt. xxv. 20 addXa TévTe 
| TaXavTa éxépdnoa er’ avrots in addition to those five talents (if ém 351 
avtois is genuine), Luke xvi. 26 émt maou rovtous besides, over and Sh el. 
above, all this, Lucian. conscr. hist. 31; Aristoph. plut. 628 (ef. 
Wetsten. and Kypke in loc.), Phil. ii. 17; Col. ii. 14; Eph. vi. 16 
(cf. Polyb. 6, 23,12). Hence in Jno. iv. 27 éri tovtTw FrOov oi 368 
pabnrai upon this, as Jesus spoke thus with etc., came the dis- thed. 
ciples. It is used somewhat differently in 2 Cor. vii 13 ézi 77 
Tapakrjoel TEplacoTepws adrov exapnuev besides my consolation, 

I rejoiced, etc. . 

c) Over, of the object after verbs denoting an emotion, as 
Oavpdferv, ayarrav, TevOciv, NuTEtc Oa, dpyibec Oar, [waxpoOupeir], 
petavoeiv, Luke i. 47; xviii. 7; Mark ili.5; xii. 17; Matt. vii. 28; 
Rom. x. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 21; Rev. xii. 17; xviii. 11 (Plat. symp. 
217 a. and 206 b.; Isocr. paneg. 22; Lucian. philops. 14; Aristot. 
rhet. 2,10,1; Palaeph.1,8; Joseph. antt.5,1,26a.). With edya- 
pioreiy it signifies to give thanks over (for), 1 Cor.i.4; 2 Cor.ix. 15; 
Phil. i. 3 sq.; Polyb. 18, 26, 4. It is also employed with verbs of 
speaking, Rev. x. 11 mpogntedoas eri Aaois (xxii. 16 var.), Jno. 
xii. 16 tadTa ty em adto yeypappéva (Her. 1, 66; Paus. 3,13, 3; 412 
cf. Schoemann, Plut. Agis p. 71). 

50 


894. § 48, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 


d) On, of a supposition or condition (Xen. symp. 1, 5; Diod. 
S. 2,24; Lucian. conser. hist. 88; Aesop. 21,1): ém édaidés on 
(in) hope, 1 Cor. ix. 10 (Plat. Alcib. 1, 105b., éa édmios Dio 
Chr. 1003, 21; Herod. 3, 12, 20), Heb. ix. 17 é7t vexpois (on 
one’s death) after men are dead, when death has taken place. It 
is used also of motive, Luke v. 5 éri 7@ phyati cov yadkdow 7d 
dixtvoy on thy word, induced by thy word, Acts iii. 16 éwt 7H riotes 
on account of the faith, xxvi. 6; Matt. xix. 9 (1 Cor. viii. 11 
var.) ;2 cf. Xen. Mem. 8, 14,2; Cyr. 1, 3,16; 1,4, 24; 4,5,14; 
Her. 1,157; Lucian. Hermot. 80; Isocr. areop. 336; Dio Chr. 
29,293. Hence é¢’ 6 wherefore, on which account, Diod. 8. 19, 98 
(ép grep Dio C. 43, 95, etc.), and because 2 Cor. v.4; Rom. 
v.12; probably also Phil. iii. 12 (on this account that, for émt tovT@ 
é7e see Fr. Rom. I. 299 sq.), eo quod.3 
e) To, for, of aim and issue, 1 Thess. iv. 7 ovx éxarecev él 
axaBapoia to uncleanness, Gal. v. 13 (like careiv emt Eevia Xen. 
An. 7, 6,8, and the like; see Sintenis, Plutarch. Them. p. 147), 
2 Tim. ii. 14; Eph. ii. 10, cf. Xen. An. 5, 7, 34; Mem. 2, 3, 19; 
Plat. rep. 8, 389b.; Diod. 8S. 2,24; Arrian. Alex. 1, 26,4; 2, 18; 
9; Diog. L. 1, 7,2; cf. Index to Dio C. ed. Sturz p. 148 sq., ac 
cording to some éf @ Phil. iii. 12 unto which (for which). 
f) After, of the rule, model, Luke i. 59 kcareiv éri Td dvopmate 
after the name (Neh. vii. 63). To this head, probably, belongs 
359 also Rom. v. 14 émi 7@ dpovmpate THs TapaBacews Addu ad (Vulg. 
bibed. an) stmelitudinem peccati Ad.; for other explanations, see Meyer. 
369 2 Cor. ix. 6, however, we cannot with Philippi (Rom.- Br. S. 172) 
ithed. understand in the same way; see above, p. 392. 


When exit with Dat. in a local sense is joined to a verb of direction or 
motion (Matt. ix.16; Jno. viii. 7, not Matt. xvi. 18; Acts ili. 11), the phrase 
413 includes together with the idea of motion that of tarrying and resting also. 


d. ITapa beside i.e. properly near, at the side of, used of place, 
with the Dative of the thing only in Jno. xix. 20 (Soph. Oed. C. 


1 Yet several of these passages may be referred to the more general signification at, 
with (see above), as is done by Fr. Rom. I. 315. 

2°Amodcitat 6 aobevav aderApds éml TH of yvdoet (where, however, good authorities 
[Sin also] read év) is, properly, perishes on thy knowledge i.e. because thy knowledge is 
urged, — briefly, through thy knowledge. But emi does not therefore, as Grotius Rom. 
v. 12 maintains, strictly mean through. 

3 The Greeks usually employ the Plural, é¢ ois (but ém! r@Se Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 
211). Rothe (Versuch tiber Rom. v. 12 ff. p. 17ff.) has recently asserted that in the 
N. T. this eg’ ¢ should be uniformly rendered on the supposition, on the understanding, 
on condition, that, in as fur as. ‘There is no passage, however, in which this would not 
be artificial and forced ; cf. Rickert, Comment. zu Rom. 2 Aufl. I. 262. 


§ 48, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 395 


1160 ; Platg Ion 535 b.), elsewhere with the Dat. of the person 
(Kru. 299) ; sometimes denoting 

a) What is externally near, by, with, Luke ix. 47, or what is 
in one’s vicinity, province, custody, 2 Tim. iv. 13 gedovny amédurrov 
mapa Kaprq@, 1 Cor. xvi. 2 (Aristot. pol. 1, 7), Luke xix. 7 (where 
Tapa auapt. belongs to catadidoav), Col. iv. 16; Rev. ii. 18; Acts 
x. 6; xviii. 3. Sometimes, and more frequently, 

b) In reference to what is ideally near one, in one’s possession, 
power, capacity, etc. (penes); as, Matt. xix. 26 rapa avOpwrois 
ToUTO advvaTov éoTW, Tapa dé Ve@ TavTa duvata, Rom. ii. 11 ov 
yap €oTt TposwroAn ia trapa Ged, ix. 14; Luke i. 37 (mapa Tod 
Geod is a clerical mistake) cf. Demosth. cor. 352 a. ei éots wap’ ewot 
Tis éu7reipia, Jas. i. 17; 2 Cor. i. 17, especially of the judgment, 
Acts xxvi. 8 té drictov Kpivetat Tap bpiv etc. (apud vos), Rom. 
xii. 16 un yivecOe hpdvimor trap’ éavtots (Prov. ill. 7) before your- 
selves (as judges), in your own estimation, in your own eyes, 
1 Gor. iii. 19; 2 Pet. iii. 8, (Her. 1, 32; Plato Theaet. 170d. ; 
Soph. Trach. 586; Eurip. Bacch. 399, and Electr. 737; Bhdy. 257). 
So likewise 2 Pet. ii. 11 od dépovar Kat aitav Tapa Kupiw (before 
the Lord as Judge) BrAdodnuov xpiow were the words 7. kup. 
genuine, and, substantially, 1 Cor. vil. 24 éxaotos év & éxrdOn, €v 
ToUT@ pevéeTw Tapa Fe@ with, before God, on the plane of God’s judg- 
ment. That vapa with the Dat. denotes strictly direction towards, 
cannot be established (Wahl in his Clav.) by Luke ix. 47, still less 
by Luke xix. 7 (see a) above). 

e. IIpos has the same primary import as zapd, but is used in 
the N. T. only in its local sense: at, by, in the (immediate) vicin- 
ity of ; as, Jno. xviii. 16 mpos 7H Ovpa, xx. 11,12; Mark v. 11 (to 


adduce instances of the same use of wpos from Greek authors’ 


would be superfluous; for the assertion of Miinter, Symbol. ad 
intptat. ev. Joa. p. 31, is untrue). So likewise Rev. i. 15 vepce- 
Cwopévos mpos Tois actos Corny girded about at the breasts with 
a girdle (Xen. ©. 7,1, 33). In Luke xix. 37 éyyifovtos 75n arpos 


414 


TH KaTaBdaoe TOV dpovs THY €daiov is to be rendered: as he was 370 
already close to etc. (In the Sept. wpds with the Dative occurs Met 


much more frequently than in the N. T.) 
f. IIep¢ and timo are never used in the N. T. with the Dative. 


1 If rapé with the Dat. is employed with a verb of motion, the same attraction must 
be acknowledged which occurs when éy is so used. But in Xen. A. 2, 5, 27, which 
Kiilner adduces as the only instance, recent editors on the authority of Codd. give 
mapa Ticcapepyyv. On the other hand, see Plutarch. Themist. c. 5 and Sintenis in loc. 
It cannot, however, be denied that in the Dative itself the notion of whither is ortginally 
contained (p. 214). Cf. Hartung iiber d. Casus. S. 81. 


396 § 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 


353 §49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE RR, 
6th ed, 

a. Eis (the opposite of é« Rom. i. 17; v. 16). 

a) In the local sense it denotes not merely into, in among (Luke 
x. 386; Acts iv. 17, likewise Mark xiii. 14 eds Ta 607 as we say, into the 
mountains), or (of countries and cities) to Gnto) Matt. xxviii. 16; 
Acts x.5; xii. 19, etc., but also (of levels) on Mark xi. 8 éotpwoav 
eis TV oddv, Acts xxvi. 14; Rey. ix. 3, and‘even simply to (ad), 
thitherward (of motion or direction) Mark iii. 7 (Polyb. 2, 23, 1), 
Matt. xxi. 1; Jno. xi. 88 épyeras eis TO uvnuetov cometh to the 
tomb, cf. vs. 41; iv. 5cf. vs.28; xx. 1cf.vs.11; Actsix. 2; Luke 
vi. 20 émrdpas Tovs opOarpovrs els Tovs walnTas towards his disciples, 
Rey. x. 5 (eis tov ovpavov) Xen. Cyr. 1, 4,11; Aeschin. dial. 2, 2. 
In reference to persons it hardly signifies to (apos or ws Mdv. 33; 
Bhdy. 215), but among, inter, Acts xx. 29 ; xxii. 21; Luke xi. 49; 
Rom. v. 12; xvi. 26; Plato Prot. 8349a.; Gorg. 526 b. (when it 
occasionally approaches the import of the Dative, Luke xxiv. 47, 
see above, § 31,5); in one passage, into a person’s house, Acts 
xvi. 40 eisfAOov eis tHv Avdiay (according to many [minuscule] 
Codd.) see Valcken. in loc. cf. Lys. orat. 2 in. Strabo 17, 796; - 
Fischer, Well. If. IL. p. 150; Schoem. Isae. 863, and Plutarch. 
Agis p. 124, (but the better Codd. [Sin. also] give mpos). 

415 bb) Applied to time, eis signifies sometimes a point, limit for, at 
which Acts iv. 3 (Herod. 3, 5, 2), or wp to, till which, Jno. xiii. 1; 
2 Tim. i. 12;2 sometimes a period (/or, during, like ém/) Luke 
xli. 19 efs qrodra Eryn (Xen. M. 3, 6, 18). 

c) Used tropically, of cdeal relations, it denotes any avm or end; 
as, Acts xxviii. 6 pndev atorov els avTov ywvopevoy unto, towards 
(on)him, ef. Plut. Moral. p.786¢.; hence, a. the measure, amount 
(Bhdy. 218) which something reaches, 2 Cor. x. 13 eis Ta duetpa 
Kavyao0at, iv. 17 (Lucian. dial. mort. 27, 7), cf. also the well- 
known eis partota and els Tpis. B. the condition into which 
something is brought, Acts ii. 20; Rev. xi. 6; Heb. vi. 6; ef. like- 

371 wise Eph. ii. 21 f. y. the result, Rom. x. 10 (xiii. 14), 1 Cor. 
ith el. 53,17 eis 7o Kpetrrov cuvépyecbe. 6. the direction of the feelings 


1 Likewise in 1 Cor. xiv. 36; 2 Cor, x. 14 es is more appropriate than wpés, inasmuch 
as in all these passages ideal reaching to one (his knowledge or intercourse with him) 
is spoken of. 

2 (The more expressive) €ws (or méxpe) is oftener used in this sense; and many 
passages adduced in Lexicons under the signification usque ad are not purely temporal, 
but include the eis of purpose, aim, Gal. ili. 17, 23 ; Eph. iy. 30. 


§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 397 


views, etc. and the deportment towards (erga and contra), 1 Pet. 

iv. 9 didoFevor eis aNAHAOVs, Rom. viii. 7 (Her. 6, 65), xii. 16 ; 
Mae xxvii, 10> 5 Jno: 0; Col. iii. 9; 2 Cor. viii. 24; x.1; Luke . 
xii. 10, to which sense likewise Col. i. 20 admoxatadXdtTew TU els 
avtov may be referred (cf. &addatTew mpos twa Demosth. ep. 3, 304 
p- 114; Thuc. 4, 59 ete.) ;! further, the direction both of the Gth ed. 
thoughts, Acts ii. 25 david réyer els adrov aiming at (referring to) 
him (dicere in aliquem, cf. Kypke in loc.), Eph. i.10; v.32; Heb. 

vii. 14; cf. Acts xxvi. 6,? and of the desires (after something) Phil. 

i. 23 and of the will in general; and then, the occasion Matt. 
xii. 41 els 7d Kypvypa Iwvad at the preaching; the purpose and 
end in view (Bhdy. 219) Luke v. 4 yaddoate ta Siktva buwav els 
aypav for a draught (to catch), 2 Cor. ii. 12 €Adev els tiv Tpwada 

eis TO evaryyéduov for the gospel i.e. in order to publish it, Acts 
mers Vil. O; WOM, V. 21; vi. 19 $ Vill. 15; ix. 215 xiii. 14; xvi. 19; 
eee. xi. i; | Pet. iv, (; 2 Pet. i,12; 2 Cor. ii.16; vii. 9; 
Gal. 11. 8; Phil. i. 25 (eis & for which Col. i. 29; 2 Thess. i. 11; 

ef. 1 Pet. ii. 8, e’s 7 Matt. xxvi. 8). In this way are explained 
also the phrases éAmifewv, mictevew els Twa, as well as the passages 

in which eds relating to persons signifies for, Rom. x. 12 wAouvTaév 

ets Tavras, Luke xii. 21; 1 Cor. xvi. 1 etc. (and thus borders on 

the Dat. see a) above), and lastly, the looser connections where 

eis is rendered in reference to, as respects, with regard to (Bhdy. 416 
220; Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 484) Acts xxv. 20; 2 Pet.i.8; Rom. 

iv. 20; xv. 2 (of things, Xen. Mem. 3,5,1; Philostr. Apoll. 1, 16), 

2 Cor. xi. 10; Eph. iii. 16; iv. 15; Rom. xvi. 5 (of persons). 
Sometimes subjective and objective purpose, aim and effect, cannot 

be separated, Heb iv. 16; Luke ii. 34; Rom. xiv.1; Jude 21. 
The German zu, for, to, includes both. Further, cf. § 29,8 note: 


The following alleged significations of «is are to be rejected: Sub (Rom. 
xi. 32 cf. Gal. il. 22) ; eis here retains the signification of 7m, as we can 
say included 7m just as well as under; With (of the instrument), in Acts 
xix. 3 eis 70 “Iwavvov Bartirpa (€BarticPnuev) is a direct answer to the 
question eis ri ovv é€BarricOyre; strictly the answer should have been, 
unto that unto which John baptized. The expression is abbreviated there- 


1 Tt is not necessary to consider this phrase pregnant, as /’r. Rom. I. 278 does. It 
is obviously founded on the same conception as the expression preferred by Greck 
authors d:aAAdrrew mpds Tuva. 

2 Likewise dudoa: eis ‘IepoodAvua Matt. v. 35 is substantially to be referred to this 
signification ; see F’r. in loc. 

8 But in Jno. iv. 14 Gddouévov els Cwhv aidviov is probably to be rendered into, though 
BCrusius is of a different opinion. 


398 § 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 


fore, or rather, inexact. Nor can ¢is be strictly rendered before, coram 
in Acts xxii. 80 (see Kiihndl), cf. Heind. Plat. Protag. 471; Stallb. Plat. 

8792 symp. p. 43sq.3 but éorycay (airov) eis atrovs is: introduced (placed) 

ith ed. him among them, in the midst (eis pécov). In 2 Cor. xi. 6 év zavrt dave 
pwlévres cis tas is very nearly : towards you (erga), as elsewhere zpds is 
used. That eis is ever equivalent to dua with Gen. is a fiction ; and é¢és 
duarayas ayyéAwy Acts vii. 53 is most simply rendered upon the injunctions 
of angels (which, indeed, as respects sense amounts to in consequence of 
such injunctions), unless the interpretation proposed § 82, 4 b. p. 228 be 
preferred. As to eis for év see § 50, 4, p. 414 sq. 


355 b. “Ava upon, up along! (Bhdy. 233 f.), occurs in the N.T. 

bthel. chiefly in the phrase ava pécov with Gen. of place, through the 
midst of, (an) between, Mark vii. 81; Matt. xiii. 25, and figura- 
tively with Gen. of a person, 1 Cor. vi. 5 dcaxpiva ava pécov Tod 
aderphov. Then, with numerals, in a distributive sense; as, Jno. 
ii. 6 ddpias ywpodoat ava petpntas dSvo 1) Tpeis containing two or 
three metretae aprece, [ Matt. xx. 9], Luke ix. 3; x.1; Mark vi. 40 
(where Lcehm. [and Tdf.] following Codd. B. [Sin.] give card) ; 
so frequently in Greek authors. The preposition thus gradually 
assumes the nature of an adverb (Bhdy. 234). This distributive 
signification probably grew out of such phrases as ava tay éros 
every year, year by year. 


417 Hug, in the Freiburger Zeitschr. VI. 41 f., proposed to render the above 
passage from John: containing about two or three metretae; but he has 
not succeeded in establishing such a use. In Polyb. 2,10, 3 and Dio 
Cass. 59, 2 dvd manifestly signifies each, apiece. In Polyb. 1, 16, 2 nobody 
will believe that the writer intended to state the strength of the Roman 
legion indefinitely, as merely ‘about’ 4000 foot and 300 cavalry. In Her. 
7, 184 dvi dinxoctovs dvdpas oyLopévoie ev Exaory vyi is a pleonastic ex- 
pression, similar to others of frequent occurrence — 200 apiece ... in each 
ship, (at the rate of etc.). Rev. iv. 8 €v xa’ & abrav eyov ava mrépvyas e& 
is similar. Moreover,the Greeks use éxi with the Acc. to express about, 
jor, a numerical amount. 


c. Acad with the Acc. indicates the ground (ratio), not the design 
(not even in 1 Cor. vii. 2),? and signifies on accownt of (even in 


1 Hm. de partic. &v p.5: Primum ac proprium usum habet in iis, quae in al. rei 
superficie ab imo ad summum eundo conspiciuntur: motus enim significationem ei 
adhaerere quum ex eo intelligitur, quod non est apta visa quae cum verbo elva: com- 
poneretur, tum docet usus ejus adverbialis, ut adr’ ava ef ESpdvwy. Further, ef. Spitener 
de vi et usu praepositt. ava et kard. Viteb. 1831. 

2 That is to say, it is only per consequens that the notion of design is implied in d:& 
Tas mopvelas : on account of fornications let every man have his own wife. Fornications are 


§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 899 


Jno. vil. 43; x. 19; xv. 3 etc.), or, when the motive of an action 
is meant, out of, from, Matt. xxvii. 18 dua POovov out of (from) 
envy, Hph. ii. 4 dia rv todd ayarnv (Diod. 8. 19, 54 dia rh 
Tpos Tovs HrvynKoTas €deov, Aristot. rhet. 2, 13; Demosth. Conon. 


730c.). As to Rom. iii. 25, which even Reiche has misunder- 373 
stood, see Bengel. In Heb. v. 12 dia tov ypovov is, on account th ed. 


of the time, considering the time (you have enjoyed Christian 
instruction ;1 not, as Schulz renders it, a/tev so long a time). 
Sometimes ova with Acc. denotes apparently the means (ground 
or motive and means are very closely connected, cf. Demosth. cor. 
854a.; Xen. M. 8, 3,15; Liv. 8, 53; and in the poets &d is 
sometimes used with the Acc. even in a local sense, see Bhdy. 


236): Jno. vi. 57 xkayo §@ diva Tov Tatépa Kal 6 Tpwyov me SyoeTat 356 
8? éué, just as in Long. pastor. 2 p. 62 Schaef. da tas v¥pdas Mth ot 


éfnoe, Plut. Alex. 668e. But the passage strictly means, J live 
by reason of the Father, that is, because the Father lives, cf. Plat. 
cony. 285 e.; Fr. Rom. I. 197, who adduces as parallel Cic. Rose. 
Am. 22, 63 ut, propter quos hance suavissimam lucem adspexerit, 
eos indignissime luce privaret. Passages more or less similar are 
-Demosth. Zenoth. 576a.; Aristoph. Plut. 470; Aeschin. dial. 1, 2; 

Dion. H. TI. 1579; cf. Wyttenb. Plut. Mor. II. p. 2 Lips. ; Sintenis, 
Plutarch. Themist. 121; Thuc. ed. Poppo II. I. 517. But Heb. 
vy. 14; vi. 7 by no means belong here, nor (as de Wette and Ewald 
still maintain) Rey. xii. 11 évixknoay dia 76 aia, ef. vii. 14 and 
what immediately follows, cal ov« nyarnoav thy Wwuynv etc. As 
to Rom. viii. 11 (where the reading, indeed, varies) see Fr., and 
as to Jno. xv. 3 Mey. inloc. Im 2 Cor. iv. 5; Heb. ii. 9; 2 Pet. 
ii. 2 (where Schott still renders it by per, which gives a false sense 
even; Bengel otherwise) Rev. iv. 11, dca is quite appropriately 
translated for the sake of. So too in Rom. viii. 202 (where Schott 
has peragain). But in Rom. xv.15 da rhv yapw tiv S00cicav pot 


the ground of this regulation, inasmuch as they are to be prevented. In Greek authors 
also design sometimes in the same way attaches itself to dia; see the annotators on 
Thue. 4, 40 and 102. 

1 The phrase is used thus, essentially, in Polyb. 2, 21, 2 and elsewhere, see Bleck on 
the above passage. Schulz insists in applying the temporal sense of Sia to Heb. ii. 9 
likewise. But da 7d rd@nua tod Oavdrov means, on account of the suffering of death, 
and is elucidated from the well-known connection, recognized by the apostolic writers, 
between the sufferings and the exaltation of Christ. 

2 Here 8:4 tov brordtayra constitutes an antithesis to odx éxodoa, not voluntarily, but 
by reason of him that subjected,—by the will and command of God. Probably Paul 
intentionally avoided saying 8d rod émordtavros, equivalent to 6 debs bmérate avThy. 
Adam’s ‘sin was the proper and direct cause of the waraidrns. 


418 


400 ‘§49, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 


the preposition must not, in consideration of xii. 8 dua THs yaputoy 
THS Sofelans jot, be understood in this sense ; both expressions are 
proper. 1 Jno. ii. 12 is correctly rendered by Liicke. 2 Pet. ii. 2 
needs no comment. In 2 Pet. ili. 12 6” 4v may be referred to 7 
tov Geod juépa, and translated on account of; yet if referred to 
mapovoia, as is done by Bengel, it gives sense. Lastly, in Gal. 
iv. 13 8’ acOévecay ris capKos is probably not to be understood 
(Schott) of the state, condition (6? daOevelas), but means: on 
account of weakness, owing,to a weakness; see Mey. 
d. Kara. The local (primary) meaning is, 
a) down upon (down along, cf. Aeschin. dial. 3,19), passing 
374 on, through, over (Xen. OC. 6, 2, 22); as, Luke viii. 39 awprOe nal? 
ithel. OAnY THY TOMY KnpvooaV, XV. 14 Ayos KaTAa THY Yopav throughout 
the country, all over the country, Acts viii. 1 (2 Mace. iii. 14; 
Strabo 3, 163); Acts v. 15 éxpépew xata tas mratelas through the 
streets, along the streets, vill. 836 (Xen. An. 4, 6, 11), Luke ix. 6; 
xiii. 22; Acts xi. 1; xxvii. 2 (Xen. C. 8, 1, 6, Raphel. in logsj2 
Uniformly of horizontal extension. So even in Acts xxvi. 3 Ta 
419 cata trols Iovdaious On kal Sntnwata the customs etc. extending 
throughout the Jews (common among the Jews).? 
857  b) on to, towards, Phil. iii. 14 (kata cxorey towards the mark), 
6th ed. Acts vill. 26; xvi. 7; Luke x. 32 (Aesop. 88,4; Xen. C. 8, 5,17); 
likewise merely of the direction (geographical position, versus), 
Acts ii. 10 ts AuBins ths Kata Kupyynv, xxvii. 12 Aypéva BrEtrovta 
kata NiBa (Xen. An. 7, 2,1). Accordingly, cata mposwirov Twos 
signifies to one’s face i.e. before one’s eyes, Luke ii. 81; Acts iii. 13; 
so also kat’ odOadpovs Gal. iii. 1 (Xen. Hist. 1, 14 like car’ dupa 
Hurip. Androm. 1064, cat’ déupata Soph. Ant. 756). Likewise in 
Rom. viii. 27 cata Ocdv évtvyyavew does not mean (in a local 
sense) apud deum, but, properly, towards God, before God.3 


1 Kard, in its local signification is not properly synonymous with éy (as even Kiihnél 
on Acts xi. 1 asserts). Kara thy méAw means, throughout the city; xa6 é5dv along the 
road, on the road (as on a line). Even kat’ ofxoy, where the primary meaning recedes 
farthest from view, is used to express a different conception from éy ofkw (as zu Hause, — 
at home is different from im Hause, in the house). Besides, xaté has established itself in 
‘many phrases where probably évy might have been used. 

2 Hence comes the meaning with, among, as of ka tuas moimtal Acts xvii. 28, ef. 
xiii. 1 and other passages; see above, p. 193. Kard with a personal pronoun is em- 
ployed thus, especially in later authors, as merely a circumlocution for a possessive 
pronoun; see Hase, Leo Diac. p. 230. 

8 Against this explanation, adopted also by #’r. Krehl and others, various objections 
have recently been raised, particularly by Mey. and Philipp. The most unimportant 
of all is that then kat’ avréy would be used. ‘The emphasis implied in the substantive 


§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 401 


Closely connected with this is the temporal use of the preposition, 
sometimes as in Acts xvi. 25 kata To wecovi«tiov towards midnight, 
and sometimes as in Matt. xxvii. 15 xa@ éoprjv during the festival, 
i. 20 nar dvap during a dream, secundum quietem (Herod. 2, 7, 6, 
kata pas by daylight Xen. C. 3,3, 25, cata Biov Plato, Gorg. 488 a.), 
Heb. ix. 9 also ili. 8 (Sept.) xara tv 7pépav Tod Treipacpod in the 
day etc., and Kata To av7o at the same time Acts xiv. 1. 

Hence it is employed of both place and time in a distributive 
sense, first with plural nouns, as cata durds by tribes, Matt. xxiv. 7 
Kata toTrous, Acts xxii. 19, cata d00 in pairs 1 Cor. xiv. 27 (Plato, 
ep. 6, 323c.), Mark vi. 40 var.; afterwards frequently with singular 
nouns, as in Acts xv. 21 xata rod from city to city (Diod. 8. 

19, 77; Plutarch. Cleom. 25; Dio Chr. 16,461; Palaeph. 52, 7), 
Kat évavtov yearly Heb. ix. 25 (Plato, pol. 298 e.; Xen. C. 8, 6, 375 
16, cata phva Xen. An. 1,9,17; Dio C. 750, 74), Ka® ayépav ith ob 
daily Acts ii. 46; 1 Cor. xvi. 2 (Hm. Vig. 860).1 

Used figuratively. kara is the preposition of reference and direc- 420 
tion to something: either generally, as in Eph. vi. 21 7a nar éué 
quae ad me pertinent, Acts xxv. 14, or in limitation of a general 
expression (Her. 1, 49; Soph. Trach. 102 and 379) Eph. vi. 5 oé 
Kata cdpKa Kip. as respects the flesh, so far as concerns the flesh, 
Rom. ix. 5 €€ ov (Iovéalwy) o Xpictos TO Kata cdpKa (1 Pet.iv.14), 
Acts ili. 22; Rom. vii. 22 also xi. 28 and xvi. 25; or specially 

a) the measure, the standard, according to, in conformity to, 
as in Eph. iv.7; Matt. xxv. 15; Jno.ii.6; Luke ii. 22 cara vopor, 
Heb. ix. 19 (Xen. Cyr. 5, 5, 6), Acts xxvi. 5; Rom. xi. 21 xara 358 
dvow, Matt. ix. 29 cata tHv riot bpov according to your faith, ‘hed 
as it deserves, 2 Cor. iv. 13; Rom. ii. 2 cata adnOevav, Matt. ii. 16 
kata xpovov according to the time. Hence it denotes similarity, 
sort (pattern), Heb. vill. 8f. cuvTedéow ... SvaOneny Kawi, ob Kata 
Tv Siabyknv, iv eroinoa etc. (1 Kings xi. 10), Acts xviii. 14. 
Likewise with names of persons cara twa usually signifies accord- 
ing to some one’s opinion Col. ii. 8 (Eph. ii. 2); 2 Cor. xi. 17, or 
will Rom. xv.5; 1 Cor. xii. 8; cf Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 91, or 


is easily felt, and is indicated visibly, too, by the position of kara Ocdy, though the point 
of principal moment lies in brép aylwv. The translation, according to God, introduces 
an entirely unnecessary idea into the passage, since of the Spirit no different intercession 
can be thought of. 

' Also xa? éaurdy for one’s self is usually referred to this use (see e.g. Passow), but 
erroneously, as the phrase is not distributive. Kaé’ éaurdy, and the like, properly means 
in reference to one’s self, whereby something is restricted to a single subject; hence for 
one’s self, adv. seorsum. As to @xew «. éavrdy, sce Fr. Rom. III. 212. 


402 § 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 


according to some one’s pattern and example, as in Gal. iv. 28 
kata Ioadx in the same way as Isaac, ad exemplum Isaaci, 1 Pet. 
i. 15; Eph. iv. 22 (Plato, Parm. 126c.; Lucian. pisc. 6, 12; eunuch. 
18; Dio C. 376,59; cf. Kypke and Wetst. on Gal. as above, Marle, 
floril. p. 64. sq.). It is used of authors: +o xara Maréaiov ebayryé- 
Awoy the gospel (the evangelic history) as recorded by Matthew. 
(according to Matthew’s understanding and exposition of it). 
As to eivat kata capKa, Kata Tvedua Rom. viii. 5, see the expositors. 
In the (Pauline) phrase cat’ av@pwrov after the manner of man, 
in (ordinary) human fashion, (with contexts of various descrip- 
tions), xard is used more generally: Rom. iii. 5; Gal. i. 11; 
iii, 15; 1 Cor. ix. 8; 1 Pet. iv. 6 (see Wiesing: in loc.),seeqim 
Rom. I. 159 sq.t Cf. in connection with the same use of «ata, 
421 Rom. iv. 4 xara yapw by way of grace, 1 Cor. ii. 1 Ka® brrepoyny 
876 Aoyou, Phil. 111.6; Eph. vi. 6; Rom. xiv. 15; Acts xxv. 23 avdpace 
Ihel. rots Kat’ eLoynv THs TOAEwS. 

b) the occasion (and the motive), a sense closely allied to the 
preceding (hence in Rom. iv. 4 cara ydpw may be rendered also, 
of (out of ) grace), Matt. xix. 8 amodtoat THY yuvaika KaTa TacaY 
aitiav for every cause, on every ground (Kypke in loc., cf. Paus. 5, 
10,2; 6,18; 2, 7), Rom. ii. 5; Actsii. 17 cata ayvovay érpagate 
in consequence of ignorance (Raphel. in loc.), Phil. iv. 11 ovy ore 
kal votépnow Neyo from (in consequence of suffering) want, Tit. 
iii. 5; 1 Pet. i. 3 cata 76 adtod éreos,? Eph. i.5; Her. 9, 17 (xara 
To éyOos) ete. cf. Diog. L. 6,10; Arrian. Al.1,17,13. Also in Heb. 
xi. 7) Kata triotw Sdivxacoctvn the righteousness which proceeds 
from faith. 

c) the intention, purpose, for, to (Jno. ii. 6), 2 Tim.i.1;? Tit. 
i. 1 (cf. Rom. i. 5 es), and the (necessary ) result, 2 Cor. xi. 21 


1In 2 Cor. vii. 9, 10 AvmeicOat kara Gedy and Avm7 x. 6. is not sorrow produced by 
God (Kypke in loc.), but, as Bengel aptly says, animi Deum spectantis et sequentis, to 
sorrow according to God i.e. after the mind and will of God. In the passage that 
follows Paul might in the same way have written h Kata Toy Kdomoy AUTyn. But F 
tov «dapmov Av’7n has a meaning somewhat different: the sorrow of the world, i.e. as 
the world (those who belong to the world) possesses and experiences it (of course about 
the things of the xécuos). Bengel in like manner has duly appreciated the difference 
between these two expressions. In 1 Pet. iv. 6 kata av@pérous means after the manner 
of men, and is more closely defined by the annexed capxi; just so kard Oedy means 
after the manner of God, which is more closely defined by rvevuart (for God is mvetdua). 

2 Accordingly xatdé sometimes stands parallel to the Dat. (instrum.), as in Arrian, 
Al. 5, 21, 4 kar? 200s 7d Tdpou padrrov }) pidrla tH AActdvdpov. See Fr. Rom. I. 99. 

8 Matthies gives an artificial exposition with the remark that it cannot be shown that 
katd expresses object. ‘This import, however, is very naturally involved in the original 
meaning of this preposition. Moreover, see Mtth. 1356, 1359. 


§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 403 


Kat atipiay Néyw to (as a, by way of) reproach (Her. 2, 152; 
Thuc. 5,7; 6,31). The signification cum must be rejected, 
though kata may sometimes be translated with. In Rom x. 2 859 
Gros Oeod GAN od Kar eriyvwcw is zeal for God, but not according “+: 
to knowledge, i.e. not as zeal resulting from knowledge manifests 
itself (cf. above, car’ dyvoray), 1 Pet. iii. 7. In Heb. xi. 15 xara 
miotw améVavoy etc. means: they died in (according to) faith, 
without having received etc.; it was in accordance with faith 
(with the nature of wéoqis) that they died having seen only from 
afar the fulfilment of the promises. The idea of cata wiotw is 
contained in the second participial clause. 

e. ‘T7ép with Acc. signifies beyond, away-over (Her. 4, 188; 
Plato, Crit.108e.; Plut. virt. mul. p. 231 Lips.). In the N.T. it 
never occurs in reference to place, but is always used figuratively, 
beyond, over and above in number, rank, quality; as, Acts xxvi. 13 
Pas Tepiriapwrav ... UTép THY NapTpOTHTAa Tod 7ALoOV, Matt. x. 24 
ovK éote paOnris umép Tov diddoKarorv, Philem. 16; Matt. x. 87 6 
prov watépa uTep évé (Aesch. dial. 3, 6), 2 Cor. i. 8 (Hpict. 51, 
37); Gal. i. 14, also 2 Cor. xii. 13 ti yap éotw, 0 nrTnOnTE b7Ep 
Tas NaiTras exkAnoias inferior beyond the other churches (gradation 422 
downwards). Concerning w7ép after comparatives, see § 35, I. 

f. Mera denotes motion into the midst of something, Iliad 2, 376. 
Then it signifies motion after, behind, something; in prose, how- 
ever, it more frequently means behind, after (post) of a state of 
rest, Heb. ix. 3 wera 70 Sedtepov Katarréracpa (Paus. 3,1,1). In 
all other passages of the N.'T’. where it occurs it signifies after in 
regard to time, (the opposite of apo), even in Matt. xxvii. 63 
—where the popular expression presents no difficulty, see Krebs, 
obs. p. 87 sq. —and 1 Cor. xi. 25 peta 70 Seervica, which must 377 
not, in consideration of Matt. xxvi. 26 (éc@uvtwv adtay), be ithel. 
rendered by during ; on the other hand, ef. Luke xxii. 20. So 
too, the familiar expression pe?” 7yépav interdiu (Ellendt, Arrian. 

Al. 4, 18, 10) properly denotes post lucem, after daybreak. 

g. Ifapa. The primary import is beside, along, of a line or 
extended space, Matt. iv. 18 epuratay rapa tHv Odraccay... 
eide etc. walking along the sea-side (Xen. OC. 5, 4,41; A. 4, 6, 4; 

6, 2,1; Plato Gorg. 511e.), xiii. 4 érece rapa tHv odor fell (along) 
by the wayside. Then it is used also of a point of space, — 
belonging, however, to an extended object; as, épyecOar mapa TH 
Oaraccav to the sea-side Matt. xv. 29; Acts xvi. 18, pimrew or 
TiOévat Tapa Tovs Todas Tt. to beside the feet Matt. xv. 80; Acts | 


404 § 49, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 


iv. 85; ef. Held, Plutarch. Timol. 356. It is used only thus also 
with verbs of rest,! as of sitting, standing, lying, (being situated) 
Tapa Thv Odraccay Or THY AiuVHY OY Tapa TINY Odov (propter mare, 
viam) Matt. xx. 80; Luke v. 1sq.; xvii. 85; Heb. xi. 11; Acts 
x. 6 & éotw oixia Tapa Oadaccay (vs. 32), cf. Xen. A. 8, 5,1; 7, 
2,11; Paus. 1, 38,9; Aesop. 44, 1; Hartung d. Casus S. 83. 
860 Further, vapa means beside the mark or aim, and consequently 
bhel (as the context may determine), sometimes above, as in Rom. 
xii. 8 (to which Fr. compares Plutarch. Mor. 83 f. @avpactai rap’ 
6 de?), sometimes below, as in 2 Cor. xi. 24 revrdnu TETTAPAKOVTA 
mapa wiav forty (with the omission of one) less one, Joseph. antt. 
4,8, 1 (ef. Heb. ii. 7 Sept.), Bhdy. 258. In the former sense it 
is used figuratively, 

a) in comparisons, as in Luke xiii. 2 dwaptwrol tapa mavtas 

423 above all (more than all, see vzrép, cf. § 385, 2 b.), iii. 18; Heb. i. 9 
(Sept.) ; ili. 8 (Dio Cass. 152,16; analogous to which is d\Xos 
mapa 1 Cor. iii. 11 other than, equivalent to the ordinary a@\Xos %, 
ef. Stallb. Phileb. 51); Rom. xiv. 5 «pivew mépav wap’ uépav 
to judge (esteem) one day above another, i.e. to prefer one day to 
another. 

b) against: Acts xviii. 13 mapa vowov (Xen. M.1,1,18; Lucian. 
Demon. 49); Rom. i. 26 wapa dvow (praeter naturam Plat. rep. 
5, 466 d.; Plut. educ. 4,9); iv. 18 aap’ éAriéa (praeter spem, 
Plato pol. 295d.) ; xvi. 17; Heb. xi. 11 (Thue. 8,54; Xen. A. 2, 
5,41; 5, 8,17; 6,4, 28; Philostr. Apoll. 1, 88); compare the 
expressions overstep, transgress, the law. The opposite would be: 
kata dbvow etc., cf. Xen. M. as above, Plut. educ. 4, 9. 

c) in Rom. i. 25 mapa tov xticavta with the omission of the 
Creator (consequently, instead of the Creator). In one passage 
mapa indicates the ground or reason: 1 Cor. xii. 15 [16] apa 
todTo therefore, strictly with (beside) this, since this is so, Weber, 
Demosth. p. 521 (Plut. Camill. 28; Dio C.171, 96; Lucian. paras. 

378 12 and often). In Latin, as is ‘wel lienoeat propter (from prope, 

ith el. ef, propter flumen) Boren the ordinary causal preposition, (Vig. 
p. 862; Vkm. Fritzsche, quaestion. Lucian. p. 124 sq.; Maetzner, 
Antiph. p. 182). 

h. Fpés to, towards, with verbs of motion or mere direction 
(Acts iv. 24; Eph. iii. 14; 1 Cor. xiii. 12 wposwzroy mpds mpdswrov 


1 Such expressions as Polyb. 1, 55, 7 év ti mapa thy “IraAlav Keyévyn mwAeupe rijs 
Sicedlas situated (extending) towards, alongside of, Italy, constitute the transition to 
this use of the preposition. 


§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 405 


Jace turned to face). Sometimes the force of the Acc. seems to 
disappear and mpos means with, particularly before names of per- 
sons, asin Matt. xiii. 56; Jno.i.1; 1 Cor. xvi. 6 (Demosth. Apat. 
579 a.) ; even here, however, zpos denotes (ideal) annexation. 
But the appropriateness of the Acc. is still perceptible in Mark 
iv. 1 6 dyAos Tpds TI Paraccay eri THs yis jv on the land towards 
the sea (by the sea-side), ii. 2; still more in Acts v. 10; xii. 51; 
Phil. iv. 6; see Fr. Mr. p. 201 sq., cf. Schoem. Isae. p. 244. The 
Latin ad, as is well-known, has both significations. 

The temporal applications wpos caipov for a time Luke viii. 13 ; 
Jno. v.35; Heb. xii. 10 f., and zpos éovépav towards evening Luke 
xxiv. 29 (Wetst. I. 826), are seen at a glance to be warranted ; 
(cf. above, emi § 47, g, d) p. 875, and § 48, c. p. 392). 

Figuratively, wpos denotes the end towards which something is 
directed, and consequently the result, issue, as 2 Pet. il. 1l6a.. 
oTpeBrovow ... mpos THY diay av’Tav amtrodeav, Heb. v.14; ix. 18; 
1 Tim. iv. 7 (Simplic. in Epict. 18 p. 146), Jno. xi. 4; but espe- 
cially the direction of the mind towards something, e.g. Heb. i. 7 424 
Mpos Tovs ayyérous Eyer tn reference to (speaking with regard to 
them), Luke xx.19; Rom. x. 21 (not Heb. xi. 18), like dicere an 
aliquem ; cf. Plutarch. de e¢ ap. Delph. c. 21; Xen. M. 4, 2, 15;-— 
in particular | 

a) disposition towards one, erga and contra,! as in Luke xxiii.12; 3961 
1 Thess. v.14; 2 Cor.iv.2; vii. 12; Acts vi.1; Heb. xii. 4;.Col. 6th ed 
iv.5; Rev. xiii. 6. 

b) design (direction of the will) and object (purpose, behalf), 
asin 1 Cor.x.11; xii.7; Matt.vi.1; Heb.vi.11; Acts xxvii. 12; 
2 Cor. xi.8; 1 Pet.iv.12. Hence pos ti wherefore (quo consilio) 
Jno. xiii. 28; cf. Soph. Aj. 40. 

c) consideration for something, Matt. xix. 8 Mwofs pos rip 
okAnpokapdiav Lwav éerétpewer etc. out of regard to, on account of, 
the hardness of your hearts (Polyb. 5, 27, 4; 88, 3, 10). 

d) the rule after, according to, which one is guided, Luke xii. 47; 
Gal. ii. 14; 2 Cor. v.10; Lucian. conser. hist. 38; Plat. apol. 40 e.; 
Aeschin. dial. 8, 17; and hence the standard according to which 
a comparison is instituted, as in Rom. viii. 18 ov« d&a Ta Trabjpwatra 
TOU VUV KaLpov Trpos Tiv “éANOVOAY SdFav aToKadudOjvar compared 
to, as if applied to a standard of comparison, Bar. iii. 86 (Thue. 

1 Thus used but seldom except in verbs already containing the notion of hostility, 


as in Sext. Empir. 3, 2 (Dio C. 250, 92). This remark is necessary to qualify the 
statement in my Observatt. in. epist. Jac. p. 16. : 


379 
Tth ed, 


425 


362 
6th ed. 


406 § 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 


6,31; Plat. Gorg. 471e.; Hipp. maj. 281 d.; Isoer. big. p. 842; 
Aristot. pol. 2,9,1; Demosth. ep. 4,119a; cf. Wolf, Leptin. p. 251; 
Jacobs, Aelian. anim. II. 340). 


That in such expressions as diatifecOar SiaOyxynv pds twa, dvaxpivecOat 
Tpos Twa, elpyvnv exev pos Twa (Rom. v. 1), Kowwvia pds te 2 Cor. vi. 14 
(cf. Philo ad Caium 1007; Himer. eclog. 18, 3) etc. (see Alberti, observ. 
p- 803; Fr. Rom. I. 252) the preposition drops the meaning cum,’ and 
signifies simply towards, has already been acknowledged by Bretschn. and 
Wahl. Also in Heb. iv. 13 zpos ov qyty 6 Adyos, the preposition denotes 
direction; and Kiihnol might have reserved his remark, ‘zpos signifies 
cum’ (cf. Elsner in loc.). Schleusner’s rendering of the phrase etxyeoOae 
apos Oeov by precart a deo, deserves to be mentioned only as a striking 
instance of unlimited empiricism. 


i. ITepi about, around. Primarily of place, as in Acts xxii. 6 
mTepractpayar pas mept eué a light shone round about me, Luke 
xili. 8; also with verbs of rest, as in Mark iii. 84 o¢ mepi adrov 
xabrpevor, Matt. iii. 4 etye Covnv Trep Tov ooduv about his loins. 
Then of time, as in Mark vi. 48 zepi reraptnv duraxjv about the 
fourth watch (circa in Latin), Matt. xx. 8 (Aeschin. ep. 1, 121 b.) ; 
Acts xxii. 6. Lastly, of the object around which an action or a 
state revolves, as it were, as in Acts xix. 25 oi wepi Ta Towadra 
épyatat (Xen. Vectig. 4, 28); Luke x. 40 (Lucian. indoct. 6) ; 
1 Tim. vi. 4 voody wept &mrjcews (Plat. Phaed. 228e.). Hence it 
is sometimes equivalent to im reference to, as in Tit. ii. 7; 1 Tim. 
i. 19; 2 Tim. iii. 8 (Xen. Mem. 4, 8, 2; Isocr. Evag. 4; errorem 
circa literas habuit, and similar expressions, occur in Quintil. and 
Sueton.). Cf above, § 30, 8, note 5 p. 192, and Ast, Plat. lege. p. 37; 
but especially Glossar. Theodoret. p. 817 sqq. Worthy of notice, 
further, is the phrase of wept rov [Laddov Paul and his companions 
Acts xiii. 13,2 like of wept Hevopavra Xen. An. 7, 4, 16, o1 epi 
Kéxpora Xen. Mem. 8, 5,10, an expression which in later authors 
denotes the leader alone, Hm. Vig. 700. So probably in Jno. xi. 19 


1 Merd in such phrases is used also by Greek authors, though this use seems to 
become more common in the later language, Malal. 2, 52 émoAcunoay per’ GAAHAwY, 13 
p- 317, 337; 18 p. 457. ‘ 

2 Greek writers, as is well known, employ auqi likewise in this circumlocution ; but 
in simple prose epi is in general far more frequent, ‘That the expression of wep) rdv 
TladAov means not only the ‘surroundings’ (followers, companions, etc.) of Paul, but 
also includes Paul himself, arises probably from the pictorial nature of the preposition, 
which denotes what encompasses, and thus Paul’s company. An expression somewhat 
analovous to this is used in German, e.g. Miillers (genit.) i.e. Miiller and his household. 
(In Evagcouin they say, die Miillerschen, the Miillers, also including the head of the 


family.) 


§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 407 


at wept MdpOav cai Mapiay is to be interpreted; for the avrais 
following can only refer to the two sisters. Examples (but with- 
out precise discrimination) are adduced also by Wetst. I. 915 sq. ; 
Schwarz, Comment. p. 1074; Schweigh. Lexic. Polyb. p. 465. See 
also Bhdy. 265. 

k. ‘Tro originally denotes local motion, wnderneath, Matt. viii. 8 
va pou v7r0 THY oTéyny eiseAOns, Luke xiii. 34 éricvvaEas THY voooLay B89 
bro Tas TTépvyas (Xen. C.5, 4,43; Plutarch. Thes. 3); also rest, th ed. 
i.e. the being (extending) wnder a surface, as in Acts il. 5 of bz 
tov ovpavov, Luke xvii. 24 (Plat. ep. 7, 826c.), 1 Cor. x. 1 (Her. 
2,127; Plut. Themist. 26; Aesop. 36, 3),! also in Rom. iii. 13 
(Sept.) tos doridmv tro ta yeihn abtav under their lips (cf. Her. 
1,12 xataxpirrew vo THY Ovpynv). Then figuratively (Bhdy. 267 ; 
Boissonade, Nic. p. 56), Rom. vii. 14 wempapévos bro tiv apaptiav 
sold wnder sin, into the power of sin, Matt. vill. 9 éywv tr’ euavrov 
otpatiwtas (Xen. C. 8, 8,5) under me i.e. subject to my power, 

1 Pet. v.6; often in the phrase eivas or yiverOar b7r6 Te to be under, 426 
given up to, something, Matt. viii. 9; Rom. ili. 9; 1 Tim. vi. 1; 
Gal. iii. 10; iv. 2, 21 (Lucian. abdic. 23). It is applied to time 

in Acts v. 21 to Tov dépOpov (Lucian. amor. 1) close upon, towards 
(ike the local expression t7ro ro Tetyos). Similar instances are 

of frequent occurrence in Greek authors; as, wo vieta, bro TH 

éw etc. (see Alberti, observ. p. 224; Hllendt, Arrian. Alex. I. 146 ; 
Schweigh. Lexic. Polyb. p. 633). The Romans, too, use swb in 
the same way. 

l. Eri 1) Of place: motion upon (over a level surface) Matt. 
xxvii. 45 oxotos éyéveto él Tacay THY ynVv, XiV. 19 dvakNOjHvar ert 
tovs yopTous, Acts vil. 11 (xvii. 26) ; on or ¢o, coming from above 
or below, accordingly down upon Matt. x. 29 émi yhv, Acts iv. 33, 
up upon Acts x. 9 avéBn emt To dGma, Matt. xxiv. 16; 1 Pet. ii. 24 
(Xen. C. 3, 1, 4), also on (upon) Jno. xiii. 25 érremimrewv emi 7d 
anos on the breast (Jno. xxi. 20); up before (a high court) 
Matt. x. 18; Luke xii. 11; in general, of the end towards, after, 
at (which one advances, strives, arrives, etc.) Luke xv. 4; xxii. 52; 
Acts viii. 36; Phil. iii. 14 (var.) Xen. Cyr. 1,6, 39; An. 6, 2, 2; 
Kypke in loc., rarely merely ¢o (of persons) Mark v. 21; Actsi. 21.2 363 
From this primary import we may easily explain the application 

1 Accordingly Eurip. Alcest. 907 Adral te plAwy tay itd yatay, which Monk changed 
into jmd yaias, may probably be tolerated. Cf. A/atthiae, Eurip. Hec. 144. The phrase 
is certainly not peculiar to later Greek (Palaeph. 10, 1). 


2 From such passages must be distinguished Luke x. 9 fyyimev ep” Sumas 7 Bacirela, 
rod Gcov. Here a heavenly gift is spoken of which comes down on men ; cf. Acts i. 8. 


408 § 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 


of the preposition in Acts x. 10 érérrecev em’ attov éxotacts (V.5), 
i. 26 érecev 6 KNApos él MarOiay, v. 28 érayayeiv ért Twa TO aipa 
avOperrov Tivos, Jno. i. 33 and elsewhere. The German ay, almost 
universally applicable as it is, is very similar (only, in rendering 
Matt. xxvii. 29 éwéOnxav Kkaddamov eri thy deEcav, a German would 
say, in die rechte Hand; better Codd., however,*[Sin. also] give 
év 7TH Sea, and the common reading cannot be defended by Rey. 
xx. 1). Itis only in appearance that é/ with the Acc. is joined 
to verbs of rest; as in Matt. xiii. 2 0 dydog él Tov airyiarov EloTHKEL 
stood (had placed themselves) wpon the shore, cf. Odyss. 11, 577 ; 
Diod.S8.20,7. In Matt. xix. 28 caOloece eri d@dexa Opovovs (Paus. 
1, 35, 2), 2 Cor. ili. 15 KadAvppa emt tTHv Kapdiav Kettar, Acts x. 17; 

881 xi. 11, the same remark applies to the use of év/ as to that of 

Mol. e’o in similar circumstances ; see § 50,4b.; Hllendt, Arrian. Alex. 
U0 34 

427 2) Of the time over which something extends; as, Luke iv. 25 
emt éTn tTpia for, during, three years, Acts xiii. 31; xix. 10; Heb. 
xi. 30; of, Her. 38, 59; 6,101; Thue..2,25; Xen. C; Gye 
Plat. lege. 12,945 b.; Strabo 9,401. Hence éf’ écov Matt. ix. 15; 
2 Pet. i. 13 (Polyaen. 6, 22) as longas. More rarely of the point 
of time towards which, at which, something takes place, Acts iii, 1 
see Alberti in loc. 

3) Figuratively: a) of the number and degree to which some- 
thing amounts, as in Rev. xxi. 16 émt cradious dadexa yurrddov — 
where we use up to (Her. 4,198; Xen.C. 7, 5,8; Polyb. 4, 39, 4) 
Rom. xi. 13 éd’ dcov in quantum i.e. quatenus. b) of superin- 


1 Jas. v. 14 mposevidcOwoay én’ aitéy may mean let them pray over (upon) him (folding 
their hands over him in prayer, cf. Acts xix. 13), or pray down upon him, or even over 
him, for émt is very often used with Acc. where the Dat. or Gen. might have been 
expected. A recent expositor should not have rejected this exposition so lightly. In 
Luke v. 25 é¢’ 8 xaréeito (as the best Codd. [Sin. also] read) may be explained either 
according to the preceding remark, or thus: upon (over) which (a level) he lay. Moreover 
what is said above seems sufficient to justify the reading, furnished by good authority 
[also by Cod. Sin.] and already adopted by Lehm., in Jno. xxi. 4 orn én) bv alyiardy 
(cf. Xen. Cyr. 3, 3, 68, see above in the text), which Matihdi erroneously calls a semi- 
graecam correctionem. Elsewhere certainly the difference between émi with Acc. and ézt 
with Gen. or Dat. is sometimes inconsiderable. When it is supposed, however, that in 
Mark xv. 24 (we also say tiber die Kleidung loosen) Phil. 1i. 27 (sorrow upon sorrow — 
so that one sorrow comes upon another already present) the Acc. stands for the Gen. 
or Dat., a closer examination of the passages shows at once the incorrectness of the 
supposition. But in Luke xxiii. 28; Rev. xviii. 11 the Dat. also might certainly have 
been employed, cf. Luke xix. 41; Rev. xviii. 20, and in Rev. y. 1 the Acc. would have 
been even more correct. These two constructions, though, are based on somewhat 
different views of the matter. We also say tiber eine Sache freuen (to rejoice over a thing). 


$50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 409 


tendence and power over, Rev. xiii. 7 €000n adt@ éfovcla emt Tacapy 
guarnv, Heb. iii. 6; x. 21 (Xen. C. 4, 5, 58), cf. Luke ii. 8; xii. 14, 
Bacirevew eri twa Luke i. 83; Rom. v. 14; cf. Malal. 5 p. 148. 

c) of the heart’s direction, the disposition, hence towards (Franke, 
Dem. 127), erga and contra, Matt. x. 21; Luke vi. 55; 2 Cor. x. 2; 364 
Rom. ix. 23 (not 1 Pet. iii. 12), Sturz, ind. to Dio C. p. 151; hence * e 
to trust, hope, wpon Matt. xxvii. 43; 2 Cor. ii. 38; 1 Tim. v. 5; 

1 Pet. i. 13, but also ordayyvifer@ar eri tive, to have compassion 

on (towards) one, Matt. xv.32; Mark viii. 2.  d) of the direction 

of thought or discourse, Mark. ix. 12; Heb. vii. 15 (Rom. iv. 9), 

or the will, and consequently of the intention and aim, Luke 
xxiii. 48 (Plat. Crit. 52b.), Matt. iii. 7 (Xen. M. 2, 8,13; Cyr. 

7, 2,14; Fischer, ind. ad Palaeph. under éi), Matt. xxvi. 50 

ép 6 (Plato, Gorg. 447 b.), also when aim and result coincide, 
Heb. xii. 10. —_ Lastly, it is used in a very general sense: in ref- 
erence to, as Matt. xxv. 40, 45 (as to Rom. xi. 13 see a)). On 428 
motos emi Te Matt. xxv. 21, see Fr. in loc. 


§50, INTERCHANGE, ACCUMULATION, AND REPETITION OF 382 
PREPOSITIONS. Tth ed. 


1. The same preposition is employed in the same sentence or 
in parallel passages. (especially of the first three Evangelists) with 
different cases to denote different relations ; as, Heb. ii. 10 60 Ov 
Ta tjavta Kal d¢ ov ta wavta, Rev. v.1; xi. 10; xiv. 6; ef. 
1 Cor. xi. 9,12 ov« avip dia THv yvvaika,—avyjp dvd TIS yuvatkos. 
Cf. Demosth. Philipp. 2 p. 25¢. To this more remotely may be 
referred Heb. xi. 29 Ové8noav tiv épvOpav Oddraccav ws dua 
Enpas, where the Acc. is governed by the compound dafawvev, 
after which, however, dca itself governs the Genitive (cf. Josh. 
xxlv. 17 ods mwapydOopuev Se advtav, Wisd. x. 18). The distinction 
between such different cases, in itself delicate, sometimes almost 
wholly disappears in practice ; as, Matt. xix. 28 drav Kxadlaon... 
émt Opovov dd&ns avtod, xaBisecOe kal ipels ert d@dexa Opédvovs, 
XXiv. 2 od pu) adeOH AiOos él ALOov, Mark xiii. 2 od pur) ahedA 
AiGos emt ALOw (cf. Josh. v. 15 in one and the same clause é¢’ @ 
vov éotnkas ém avtov, Gen. xxxix. 5; xlix. 26; Exod. vill. 3; 
xii. 7; Jon. iv. 10), Rev. v.1,13; vi. 2,16; vii.1; xiii.16. In 
the same way Greek authors employ avaBaivew éri robs tmous 


and éri t@v inmwv (Bornem. Xen. conv. p. 272) the one as often 
52 


429 


360 
6th ed. 


383 
Tth ed, 


410 § 50, INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 


as the other (Sept. even dvaBalvew éml rats oixiass Joel. ii. 9). In 
Rev. xiv. 9 we find AauBaver To ydpaypa eri Tov peT@ToU avToU 
H émt THY yxeipa avtod, xiii. 1. Cf. also Diog. L. 2, 77... émi ri 
HKov; édn emt TO petad@ce etc., Pol. 6,7, 2 tpadevtas wre 
TovovTots, but 10, 25, 1 tpadels Kat madevbels td KXéavdpov. 
In general, see Jacobs, Anthol. III. 194,286; Bhdy. 200f. Such 
apparent indifference as respects case occurs most frequently with 
evé (Schneider, Plat. civ. I. 74), cf. edrmifew eri tut and twa 
1 Tim. iv. 10; v. 5, wevrowWévar eri Tur and twa 2 Cor. i. 9; ii. 8, 
KatactThoat emi Tivos and tw Luke xii. 42, 44 (xorrecOa eri twa 
Rev. i. 7 and ézé two xviii. 9 var.), 0 émt Tod Kotta@vos Acts xii. 20 
and o émt tats apxvot Xen. Cyr. 2, 4, 25; see Lob. Phryn. 474 sq. 
Moreover, sec as to é7é used of aim with Gen. Bremi, Aesch. p. 412, 
with Dat. and Acc. Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 59, as to éf’ éavrod and 
ep éavt® Schoem. Isae. p. 849, as to wapa with Gen. instead of 
Dat. Schaef. Dion. p. 118 sq. Hence in detached instances, where 
an exact parallel may not be found in Greek authors (Luke i. 59 
karely eri twe cf. Ezra ii. 61; Neh. vii. 63 etc.), we are not au- 
thorized to pronounce the construction un-Greek, particularly if 
something analogous can be adduced (Mtth. 1574), or if the case 
employed can be easily conceived as connected with the preposition 
in question. On the other hand, the N. T. writers never use é7i 
Kraviio or Kravéduov for évi KvXavéiov, nor construe ézé of con- 
dition (stipulation) with the Gen. or Acc. It was not till a later 
period that different cases, which though construed with the 
same preposition conveyed different significations, began to be 
confounded in the written language of the Greeks, so that e.g. 
peta with Gen. and pera with Acc. came to be used in the same 
sense, see above, p. 363. 


That in the same sentence the same preposition with the same case 
should be used in different relations and senses cannot be considered any 
more strange in Greek than in any other language, e.g. Luke xi. 50 iva 
exlyntyn$y TO awa ravrwv TOV TpopyTov ...a7O THS yeveds TaITHS G7O TOD 
aipatos “ABeX etc., Rom. xv. 13 eis 10 wepisoeve twas ev tH eAmidu ev 
Suvdpe wvevparos aylov, Ino. ii. 23 Hv év 7.. IepocodAvpots Ev TO Taoyxa ev 
7H €opTH, 2 Cor. vii. 16 xalpw dre év mavri Oappo év iptv, xii. 12; 1 Cor. 
iii. 18; Rom.i.9; Eph. i. 3, 14; ii. 8,7; iv. 22; vi. 18; Phil. i. 26; 
ii. 16; 1 Thess. ii. 14; 2 Thess. i. 4; Col. i. 29; ii. 2; iv. 2; Heb. v. 3; 
ix. 11f.; Jno. iv. 45 (xvii. 15); Acts xvii. 31; 2 Pet, i. 4 (Philostr. her. 
4,1; Arrian,. Epict. 4, 13, 1). 


2. The two different prepositions in the same sentence in Philem. 


§ 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. A11 


5 dkovwv cov tiv ayarny Kal Thy TioTLW, tv Exes T POS TOV KUpLOV 
"Inootv Kal eis wavtas Tovs aylovs are usually explained by refer- 
ring, in regard to the sense, the words mpos tov Kvpiov to mictiv, 
and eis 7dvtas Tovs aylous to ayamrnv ; —a chiasmus in which there 
would be nothing inherently surprising, cf. Plat. legg. 9, 868 b. 
(see Ast, animady. p. 16), Horat. Serm. 1, 8, 51 and the exposi- 
tors in loc. It is simpler, however, to take aiéc7is in the sense of 
fidelity, and to let both wpos t. «. and eis mavtas Tovs wytovs depend 
upon it alike, without making any distinction between the prepo- 
sitions ; see Meyer. Though some Codd. give eés in the former 
clause, this is only a correction, occasioned by the endeavor to 
make the phraseology uniform and by the circumstance that 
elsewhere faith in Christ is always called miéotis 4 ets Xptorov. 
Yet the expression wictw éxyew mpos tiva is quite unobjectionable, 
and occurs at least in Epiphan. Opp. [1.335 d. As to Luke v. 15; 
eemeyvii, 42>. Cor..x.) 8:5) dy) Thess. ii..3.5: Rom. iv. 18 5. x. 17; 
Kph. iv. 12; 1 Jno. iii. 24; 1 Thess. iv. 7; 1 Pet. ii. 12, no remark 
is required. Onl Cor.iv.10; 2 Cor.iv.17; iii. 5; xiii.3; 1 Cor. 
xii. 8 see the more recent expositors. On the other hand, in 
1 Thess. ii. 6 ovte &ytodvTes EF avOpdérav SdEav, odTE ad’ LKuadv ovTE 
avr ddAwv the two prepositions are quite synonymous, as also in 
Jno. xi. 1; Acts xxii. 34. In Rom. iii. 30 Paul certainly does not 
have in view any difference of meaning (between é€« miotews and 
dua THs TloTews), as doctrinally considered wiotis may with equal 
propriety be conceived of either as the source or as the means of 
blessedness (Gal. iii.8; Eph.ii.8). Cf. from Greek authors Paus. 
T, 7, 1 ai €x Todguwv Kai aro Tis vecov cupdopai, Isocr. permut. 
738 ; Arrian. Al. 2, 18, 9; Diod. S. 5, 30; Schaef. Gnom. p. 203 
and Soph. I. 248; Bornem. Xen. Mem. p. 45. As little difference 
is there between the two prepositions in 2 Jno. 2 tiv adiOevav tiv 
pévovoay év iuiy Kat weO nudv éorac, and in Exod. vi. 4 év 4 (y9) 
Kal TapeKynoav er avtis, Jon. iv. 10. Lastly, in 2 Cor. iii. 11 the 
distinction urged by Billroth between dia d0&ns and év d0£&n will 
hardly stand the test of usage, see above, p. 386. As to dua of 
condition (state), see p. 379 sq. On the other hand, the difference 
of import between card and eri in 1 Cor. xi. 4, 10 and between 
éx and dvd in 1 Pet. i. 23 is manifest. : 

3. Prepositions of kindred signification are substituted for each 
other in parallel passages in the Gospels and elsewhere ; as, Matt. 
xxvi. 28 (Mark ‘xiv. 24) aia rd wept modd@v éxxvvopevor, on the 
contrary, Luke xxii. 20 ro daép mondd. exy.; Matt. vii. 1G pyre 


430 


366 
bth ed. 


384 
Tth ed. 


431 


412 §50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 


ovAXNeyovow amo axavOdv ctadvrjv, on the contrary, Luke vi. 44 
ov« €£ dxavO. cvddeyovet ciKa; Matt. xxiv. 16 devyérecav él Ta 
épn (up to) cf. Palaeph. 1, 10, but Mark xiii. 14 devy. ets Ta dpy 
(into) ; Jno. x. 32 64a rotov avtav éEpyov MOakeTEe we ; VS. 33 wept 
Kanov épyou ov MOdfomév oe; Heb. vii. 2 @ kal dexatnv ao TavTeDV 
éuépiocev ABpadp,vs.46 Kal dexatny ABp. wxev Ex TOV axpoOwiwr ; 
Rom. iii. 25 efs vdevEw ths Suxacoovvns avtod, on the contrary, 
vs. 26 rpos tHv évderEw T. dux. avtov. Cf. Xen. Cyr. 5, 4, 43 mpos 
avTO TO TELYOS Tposnyayov ... ovK EOéLw UT’ avTa TA TEelyn MyELV. 
Here belongs also Heb. xi. 2 év tavrn (7h mriater) euaptupyOncay ot 
mpeaBuTepot, VS. 39 mavtes waptupnbértes Sia THs Tictews (through 
faith, i.e. ut instructi fide); here the phrases evyec@ar, mpos- 
evyec Oat, evyapiotely, dénaots epi or b7ép Twos (Rom. x.1; 2 Cor. 
i. 11; Eph. vi. 18; Col. 1.3, 9; 1 Cor. i.4; Eph-i. 163 ci Agie 
apocr. p. 53); here too the expression suffer or die epi or b7ép 
dpaptiov (the former signifying on account of, the latter for, sins) 
1 Cor. xv. 8; 1 Pet. iii. 18. Sometimes even the good Codd. vary 
between vzrép and zrepé, as in Gal. i. 4, as these prepositions were 
often interchanged by the transcribers. Cf. Weber, Dem. 129. 
(Recent editors have proposed, assuredly without sufficient reason, 
to correct the reading in Hurip. Alcest. 180, where ob @vjcKew mépt 
occurs instead of the elsewhere more usual uv7rép, see Monk in loc.) 


Sometimes we find in parallel phrases a preposition now inserted and 
now omitted; as, 1 Pet. iv. 1 wa@dvros trép qudv capxKt, and immediately 
afterwards 6 wa0ov év capki, Luke ili. 16; Acts i. 5; xi. 16 Barrilew 
vdare, but Barr. év dare Matt. iii. 11; Jno. i. 26, 33.1 This difference 
in phraseology does not affect the sense, but each form of expression arose 
from a different conception: wacyewv év capki means, suffer in the flesh 
(body); wdécyew capxi means, suffer according to (as respects) the flesh 
(§ 31,6). Bamrilew ev vdare signifies, baptize in water (immersing) ; 
Parrilev vdart, baptize with water. Here, and in most other passages, 


367 the identity of the two expressions in sense is manifest;? yet we must not 


6th ed. 


consider one as put for the other. Cf. besides, Eph. ii. 1 vexpot tots tapa- 


389 aropace but Col. ii. 13 vexpot év rots wapamr., 2 Cor. iv. 7 va » trepBody 


Tth ed, 


ms Suvapews 7 TOD Oeod Kal py e& Huadv, Matt. vii. 2; cf. Luke vi. 38; 
1 Jno. i. 18. 


4. It was formerly supposed (Glassii Philol. sacr. ed. Dathe 


1 But invariably only Bamrri¢. ev rvevpart. 

2 So in Arist. anim. 4, 10, p. 111 Sylb. AauBdveoOa tpddoyT: is, caught with a trident 
(like 7H xept with the hand); but AnpOjvar ev 7G tpiddovrt, immediately following, 
is caught on the trident. Schneider and Bekker, however, read in the latter passage 
Anpejvar ty. 


§ 50, INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 413 


_I. 412 sq.) that in the N. T. the prepositions év and eés especially 
were used indiscriminately for each other (see also Sturz, Lexic. 
Xen. II. 68, 166). The former, it was said, was employed agree- 
ably to the Hebrew idiom with verbs of motion or direction to 
denote into, as Matt. x. 16 éyw amocrédXw buds ws TpoBata év péow 
NwK@v, Jno. v. 4 aryyedos KaTéBawvev Ev TH KoNUMWBHOpa, Luke vii. 17 452 
é&nOev 6 Novos ev 6An TH Tovdala, Mark v. 30 év to Oy emvoTpa- 
deis, Rom. v. 5 4 dyamn tod Ocod éxxéyutas ev Tals Kapdiais nov, 
Luke v.16; Jno. viii. 37; 1 Cor. xi. 18, etc. Gin Rev. xi. 11 the 
reading is very uncertain, and Mark i. 16; 1 Tim. iii. 16 do not 
come under this head). The latter, it was imagined, was used 
with verbs of rest to signify in, as Acts vii. 4 () yf) ets apy vpets 
vov Katouxeite, Mark ii. 1 eds otxov éots, Jno. i. 18 6 Oy Ets Tov 
KOMTOV Tod TaTpos, ix. T viayas eis THY KoAVLBHOpar etc.! 

a. Now first in reference to év: the Greeks also, particularly 
Homer, sometimes use év with verbs of motion to indicate at the 
same time the result of the motion, that is, rest.2 This they do 
from a love of terseness peculiar to the Greek race. It is only in 
later writers, however, that such use of év appears in prose (for 
Thuc. 4,42; 7,17; Xen. H. 7, 5, 10 have now been emended on 
MS. authority, Mtth. 1343), e.g. Aelian. 4, 18 catArOe Tddtov év 
Suceria i.e. he came (and dwelt) in Sicily, Paus. 6, 20, 4 adtot 
- Kopicat hact rhs ‘Imrmodapeias ta dota év ’Odvpria, T, 4, 3 ete.; 
Alciphr. 2, 3, p. 227 Wagn.; Xen. Eph. 2,12; Arrian. Epict. 1, 

11, 82; Aesop. 16, 127, 348 de Fur.;. Dio Cass. 1288, 23; cf. 
Heind. Plat. Soph. p. 427 sq.; Poppo, Thue. I. I. 178 sq.; Schaef. 
Demosth. IIL. p. 505. The same explanation applies likewise to 
Matt. x. 16; Rev. xi. 11,? and perhaps also (with BCrus.) to Jno. 368 
v. 4, especially if these words are a later addition; for the other 


1 The above observation must be confined to the two cases specified ; for when év 
and eis might according to different conceptions be used with equal propriety, it could 
not be said that one is put for the other, e.g. rodro éyéverd wot, or TodTO eyévero els eué. 

2 The same remark applies to the Hebrew 4 when it appears to be joined to verbs 
of motion, see my exeg. Studien I. 49 ff. Further, ef. Krebs, obs. 78 f. — jixw év does 
not come under this head (Lucian. paras. 34; ef. Poppo, Thue. III. II. 891). Neither 
can Perfects or Pluperfects with év, aS kaTamepevyévat ev Témw Plat. Soph. 260 c. ; Thuc. 
4, 14, etc., be considered as parallel with the above examples. They show, however, 
the origin of this usage, cf. Bhdy. 208 ; and in good writers the usage is generally 
confined to such cases only, Ari. S. 286. Finally, the (not infrequent) construction 
épxecOa ev Luke ix, 46; xxiii. 42; Rev. xi. 11, etc. is perhaps to be also excepted 
when it denotes come (arise) in. 

3 The fact that eisépxecOau ev appears to be an imitation of the Hebrew 2 N12 makes 
no difference, as this Hebrew expression is undoubtedly to be explained in the same 
way. : 


A14 § 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 


exposition, went down tn the pool (into the depths, to produce the 
Tapayn, see Liicke), is opposed by the consideration, that then in 


‘so circumstantial a narrative a descent of the angel from heaven 


would first of all have been mentioned. In all other passages 
the substitution of év for eés is merely apparent: Luke vii. 17 
means went forth (spread) in all Judea; Mark v. 30 émvctpadeis 
ev TO OyAw turned him about (turned around) in the crowd, Luke 
v. 16 iv broywpav év tats épnwots continued retired tn the solitary 
places. If the reading is genuine in Matt. xiv. 8, &0cro év dudaKy 
exactly corresponds to the Latin ponere wm loco (for which we, 
according to a different but equally correct conception, say put 
wnto); similar is Jno. ili. 85 wavra dédaxev ev TH yecpt adrod, 2 Cor. 
vill. 16 (Iliad. 1, 441; 5, 57435 cf. also Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. I. 
598). In the same way, Matt. xxvi. 23 0 éuBawWas év TO TPUBAI@ 
is, he that dippeth im the dish, an expression as correct as the Ger- 
man tn die Schiissel eintaucht, dippeth into the dish (cf. Aesop. 
124,1). In 1 Cor. xi. 18 cuvepy. é&v éxxrnoia means, meet in an 
assembly (as.we say, meet in the market-place, in company, ete.). 
In Phil.iv.16 é7¢ Kai év Ococanovikn ... ets THY xpelav wou éTewrate 
the expression is abbreviated: ye sent to me (when I was) wm TLhes- 
salonica (cf. Thuc. 4, 27 and Poppo, in loc.). As to Jno. vill. 37 
there may be doubt how év div is to be taken, see Liicke ; but 
there can be no doubt that év is not put for e’s. As to Jas. v. 5 
see de Wette. In Matt. xxvii. 5 é 7@ va@ is, in the temple. In 
Rom. vy. 5 the use of the Perfect was sufficient to indicate the 
correct interpretation (cf. Poppo, Thue. 4, 14).! 

b. More surprising still are the passages adduced in support of 
the assertion that eds is used for év. Even in Greek authors eis is 
not unfrequently construed with verbs of rest ; and then the idea 
of motion (preceding or accompanying) was originally included, 
agreeably to the principle of breviloquentia mentioned above (Heind. 
Plat. Protag. p. 467; Acta Monac. I. 64sq.; IL. 47; Schaef. 
Demosth. I. 194 sq. ; Schoem. Plutarch. Agis 162 sq. ; Hm. Soph. 
Aj. 80; Jacobs, Acl. anim. p. 406, and, as to Latin, Hartung on 
the Cases S. 68 ff.), as Xen. Cyr. 1, 2, 4 vou eis Tas Eavtav ywpas 
Exactot TovTwy mapeow, Aclian. 7,8 “Hdatotiov eis ‘ExBdrava 


aTréBave, Isaeus 5, 46 (cf. Acts xxi. 13) Diod. S. 5, 84 dvatpiBov 


1 Passages of Greek authors in which some have erroneously thought éy is put for 
eis, have been more correctly explained by Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 247. As to eis for 
év, see ibid. II. 91. As to Latin phrases in which in with Ablat. appeared to be used 
for in with Acc., see Kritz, Sallust. II. 31 sq. 

2 Eis xwplov ths Apkadias Ovjoxe: Steph. Byz. p. 495 Mein. is to be explained in a 
different manner. 


§ 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 415 


eis Tas vious Paus. 7, 4, 3. (The use of eds with such verbs as 434 
lew, Kabélec Oar — xabjcPar — Mark xiii. 3, cf. Eurip. Iph. T. 620, 

is of a somewhat different nature, see Bttm. Dem. Mid. p. 175 ; 369 
Schweigh. Lexic. Herod. I. p. 282; Valeken. Herod. 8, 71 etc. ; 
Poppo, Thue. III. I. p. 659; Fr. Mr. p. 558.) In this way are to 3 
be explained the following passages: Mark ii. 1, where we say in 
German also er ist ins Haus, i.e. he has Aon into the house and 
is now there (Her. 1, 21; Arrian. Al. 4, 22,3; Paus. 8,10, 4 and 
Siebelis in loc. ; ive 5 eke!) Curtu.8, 5; 10); Catan iene: 
p. 258 sq.) cf. xiii. 16; Luke xi. 7; Acts ‘Vili. 40 Birurmos evpeOn 
eis “Afwtov Philip was found conducted to Azotus (cf. vs. 39 rvedua 
Kupiov Hptace Tov Pinr., see Wesseling. Diod. Sic. Il. 581; ef. 
Hsth. i. 5; Evang. bens p. 447); Acts vil. 4 els Hv tpmets vov 
katouxeite (Xen. A. 1, 2, 24; Xen. Eph. 2,12; Theodoret. Opp. 
I. 594), Mark x. 10 Catiies the position of the words is to be 
noted) ; probably also Acts xviii. 21 de? ye ripv EoptHy THY Epyouévny 
moujoat eis Iepoo., but the genuineness of these words is suspected 
and the more recent editors have omitted them, [they are wanting, 
too, in Cod. Sin.] ; Jno. xx. 7 


Tth 0 i 


( évTeTuAuypévoy ets Eva TOTrov wrapt 
together (and put) ito one place. On the other hand, in Acts 
xii. 19 ets Kasodpevay belongs grammatically to cateAOwov. In Acts 
xx. 14 evs signifies fo. In Acts xix. 22 érecye ypovov els tiv "Aciar, 
probably es is not used simply in a local sense: he remained in 
Asia; but, he remained for Asia, in order to labor there longer. 
The only admissible interpretation of Acts iv. 5 cuvay@jvat avtov 
Tovs apyovtas ... els ‘Iepoc. is that of Beza; yet the good Codd. 
[Sin. excepted] give év. In Acts ii. 39 the of ets paxpay are those 
dwelling at a distance,—afar off. In Jno. i. 18 0 dy eis Tov 
Kodmov (though here said in reference to God) is probably to be | 
referred to the primary (external and local) import: who is 
(laid) wpon (unto) the bosom.! In Juno. ix. T els tH KodkupS7Opav 
is as respects sense to be connected also with dzaye, cf.vs.11: go 
into the pool and wash thyself (cf. Luke xxi. 87) see Liicke, though 
virtecOat eis bOwp by itself is as correct as in Cato R. R. 156, 5 
in aquam macerare, or sich in ein Becken waschen (Arrian. Epict. 435 


1 Cf. with this as analogous in aurem, oculum dormire Terent. Heaut. 2, 2,101; Plin. 
epp.4, 29; Plaut. Pseud.1,1,121. De Wette rejects the above explanation, “‘as here at 
least quite inadmissible.” But why should not such figurative expressions, transferred 
from human relations to God, be taken in the sense which primarily belongs to them, 
the sense in which they had their origin? The phrase is in existence ; when transferred 
to immaterial relations it is taken just as it stands, without further thought respecting 
the physical relation in which it originated. 


388 


Tth ed, 


370 
6th ed. 


416 § 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 


3,22, 71).1 Still more easy of explanation is Mark i. 9 éBarrloOn 
eis Tov Iopdavnv. In Luke viii. 34 dariyyecnav els THY odu ete. 
means, they carried the news into the city (for which we find a 
more circumstantial statement in Matt. viii. 33: daedOdvtes eis THD 
TOW amnyyerav Tavra etc.). Not unlike this is Mark i. 39; ef, 
Jno. vill. 26. In Mark xiii. 9 Kat eis cuvarwyas Sapyjcecbe, where 
év though it has some slight MSS. support is clearly a correction, 
the words ets ocuvvaywyds cannot well (Mey.) be joined to the 
preceding wapad@oover without quite destroying the parallelism. 
The most literal rendeting, ye shall be beaten into the synagoques, 
presents no archaeological difficulty ; still, one would have sooner 
expected the beating am the synagogues. The pregnant construc 
tion, however: brought ito the synagogues, ye shall be beaten, is 
harsh for Mark. Luke iv. 23 6ca jKxovcapmev yevoueva eis Karrep- 
vaovu may be rendered: done (towards) unto Capernaum, cf. 
Acts xxvili.6; and év, which some good Codd. give, is undoubtedly 
a correction.2 See, generally, Beyer de praeposs. ev et eds in N. T. 
permutatione. Lips. 1824. 4to.® 

5. If we turn now, further, to several passages of the N. T. 
Epistles where these prepositions (particularly év for ets) are sup- 
posed to be interchanged when used in an ideal sense (cf. also 
Riick. Gal. i. 6), probably nobody will find any difficulty with 
2 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. iii. 12; 2 Pet. ii. 18 ; — quite as little with 
Eph. i. 17; vi. 15. In Phil. i. 9 Wa ayarn ... wepiccedy év ere 
yvooe. means in knowledge; the purpose, on the other hand, is 
first expressed by eds 76 Soxsuafew vs. 10. So too in Philem. 6 ézas 
 Kowovla Ths wicTe@s cou éevepyns yévntas év érrvyvocer. In Jas. 
Vv. 5 év yyépa ohayhs means — as is plain from its parallelism with 
eOncavpicate év éeoxatas tpépats vs. 3—in the day of slaughter, 
which also makes good sense, see Theile in loc. In Eph. ii. 16 


1 Jer. xli. (xlviii.) 7 WDM FIM OVMWAY Logater adtods els 79 ppéap he slew (and 
cast) them into the pit. Cf. 1 Mace. vii. 19. 

2 Soph. Aj. 80 euol dpe? todroy és Sduovs pévew can no longer be adduced; as 
Lob. has shown that the true reading is év ddéuois. See also Wunder on Lobeck’s edit. 
S. 92f. As to Xen. C. 2,1, 9, however, see Bornem. in the Index, under eis. Also 
Lycurg. 20, 3 diacaprepety eis thy marplda is not: they were stedfast in their country. 

8 Originally év and és (eis) may have been one and the same preposition, as in Pindar 
we'find agreeably to the Acolic dialect év with Acc. for eis; see Pindar ed. Béckh, I. 
p- 294, 378, etc. As little, however, can be argued from this in support of an inter- 
change of these two prepositions in the cultivated written language of the Greeks with 
its established forms, as that in German at the present day vor and fiir may be arbitra- 
rily interchanged because in the earlier language they were properly only one and the 
same word. 


§50, INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 417 


év évl cwpate points to es éva Kawov avOpwrov; accordingly, he 436 
reconciles to God év évi c@mate those Kticévtas eis Eva avOp. 

In Rom. i. 24 els axalapo. is to be joined directly to vapédwxer, 
and éy tais é7u0. is in their lusts, cf. vs. 27 év tH opéEe adtav. 

In 1 Cor. i. 8 & 7H Hu. is construed with aveyxdjrovus, and this is in 
apposition to juds. In the same way, in 1 Thess. ili. 18, €v 79 7a- 
pouoia, which is parallel to éumpooGev tod Geod, depends directly on 
Gpéurrtovs. In 2 Thess. ii. 13 e(AaTo Yuas o Oeos... els cwTnpiay ev 
dyiacue® Tvevpatos etc. means, chosen to salvation in sanctification 

of the Spirit; ayvacp. wv. is the spiritual state in which the being 
chosen to salvation is realized. 1 Jno. iv. 9 is simply: in this was 
manifested the love of God on (as respects) ws. On the other hand, in 
Rom. ii. 5 Oncaupifers ceavt@ opynv €v épa opyhs is an abbrevia- 

ted expression: thou art treasuring up to thyself wrath (which will 
break forth) on the day of wrath. And 1 Thess. iv. T ov« éxarecev 
nas 0 Oeds emi axalapoia adda ev ayiacpue is put for waste eivat 889 
Cipas) év dyracuo. 1 Cor. vii. 15 and Eph. iv. 4 may also be thet 
explained ingthe same way; others, however, understand év to 
refer to the ethical nature of the «Ajaus, see, especially, Harless 

on the latter passage. Moreover, in 1 Cor. the Perfect is not to 

be overlooked. As to diovas év tats xapdiais 2 Cor. i. 22 and the 871 
like (Rom. v. 5) no remark is necessary after what has been said ‘he 
above, p. 414. Finally, eds is not put for év in Rom. vi. 22 éyere 

TOV KapTroVv UmoVv eis aylacwov; the es manifestly designates the 
moral goal. Similar is Rom. xiii. 14. In Eph. i. 16 cpatavodcba 

eis TOY Eow avOpwrov means, to become strong in regard to the in- 
ward man. In general, it is inherently improbable that in clearly 
conceived doctrinal statements the apostles should have perplexed 

the reader by employing év for eis or eds for év. At least, they 
could have written eds with as much ease, certainly, as the exposi- 
tors who are trying to smuggle it in. 


The alleged usage of indiscriminately interchanging these prepositions 
is not sustained by an appeal to Suidas and the Fathers ;! nor by the fact 
that sometimes in parallel passages «is and év exchange places, as Matt. 
Xxi. 8 <otpwoay ra indria év rH 680, but Mark xi. 8 ets riv 636v; Matt. 
xxiv. 18 6 év 76 dyp@ pa emuotpefarw, Mark xiii. 16 6 eis rov dypév ete. ; 
Mark i. 16 dugiBadrXovres éupiBrnotpov év 7H Oadrdooy, Matt. iv. 18 Badd. 437 


1 The words of 2 Cor. xii. 2 “Asti €ws tpirov ovpavod are quoted by Clem. Alex. 
paedag. I. p. 44 Sylb. thus: ey tpir@ dpmacbels ovpavg ; on the other hand, those of 
Prov. xvii. 3 Soximd erat ev kapylvw wpyupos etc. are quoted by him in Strom, II. p. 172 
as follows: Soxim.... eis Kdutvor. 


53 


Jj 


590 the Apocr. and the Pseudepigr. 
Tth ed. 


572 


6th ed 


438 


418 §50, INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 


aupiPr. eis tiv OdAaccav—the former. means, they cast the net about 
(waved it about) in the sea; the latter, they cast it into the sea; different 
stages and acts of their business are indicated. In Rom. v. 21 éBacthevoer 
) dpaptia é€v 7 Gavatw in death, which is actually present; but wa % 
Xapis Parirevon dua Sixatoorvvys cis Cov aidvov unto life, as the end to be 
attained ; probably, however, eis ¢. aiwv. depends directly on duc. see Fr. ; 
cf. besides 2 Cor. xiii. 5. It must, however, be admitted that the limitation 
according to which eis is construed with verbs of rest and éy on the other 
hand with verbs of motion, is overlooked by writers of the later period, 
especially by the Scholiasts' and Byzantines, and so éy and és are em- 
ployed without distinction, and év even begins to predominate with verbs 
of motion, see Leo Diac. ed. Hase p. XII.; Blume, Lycurg. p. 56; Niebuhr, 
ind. to Agath., also the indices to Theophan. and to Menandri hist. in the 
Bonn ed The modern Greeks, in fact, have retained but one of these 
prepositions. Cf. further, Argum. ad Demosth. Androt. § 17 ; Theodoret. 
Opp. II. 466, 804; III. 869; Epiphan. haer. 46, 5; Pseudepiph. vit. proph. 
pp. 241, 248, 832, 334, 340,341; Basilic. I. 150; III. 496, also the Sept. 
® in many passages. Yet in the N.T. 
there is at least no instance more anomalous than those which occur in 
the earlier writers of the xow7. 


6. It is especially characteristic of Paul to use several preposi- 
tions referring to one and the same substantive, in order that 
together they may define his idea on all sides, e.g. Gal. i. 1 [TadXos 
amoaTonos ovK am avOpw@rwyv ovdé b’ avOperov, ara Sia “Inood 
Xpictov Kai Geov watpos etc. i.e. an apostle sent forth in no respect 
by human authority (not from men, as the ultimate authority ; 
not through any man, as intermediate authority); Rom. ili. 22 
(mehavépwtar) Sixatocvvn Oeod Sia tictews “Incod Xpictod eis 
mavras Kat éw) Tavtas, i.e. is most completely imparted to all be- 


lievers (is manifested wnto all and over (upon) all), Syriac waa 


wtb ‘Ss -s| (Bengel in loc. is arbitrary, following the ancient 
expositors ; Rick. helpless) ; xi. 86 €& avtov (Geov) kai dv’ adtod 
kai els adrov Ta wdvta, i.e. the world bears every possible depend- 
ent relation to God,—it is from (out of) him, inasmuch as he 
created it (the First Cause); throwgh him, inasmuch as he is 


1 Compare Hm. on Béckh’s Behandl. d. Inschrift. S. 181 f. RP 

2 Niceph. Constant. p. 48 rupAdoas ev ti ‘Péun ebemewpe, Theophan. p. 105 Tpyydpios 
rappnoiart int epoy edidackey.+. eis Td EvKTHpLOY Tis aylas avacTdcews, p. 62, 65, 68; 
Malal. 18, 467. | 

3 Cf. Wahl, Clay. apocr. pp. 165,195; Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 598, 629; Brtschn. lexic. 
man. p.139; Acta apocr. pp. 5, 13, 38, 65, 66, 68, 71, 88, 91, 93, 94, 263, and on almost 
every page. 


wf es 


. 


$50 INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 419 


(perpetually) efficient upon it; to him, inasmuch as he is the 
ultimate End to which all things are directed ;! Col. i. 16 év av7é 
(Xpictd) éxticOn TA Tavta... Ta Tavta Sv avTod Kai Els avTOV 
éxttorat, i.e. the universe stands in necessary and complete rela- 
tion to Christ; first, historically (Aor.): a him was the world 
created, inasmuch as he, the divine Adyos, was the personal ground 
of the divine creative act (just as in Christ God redeemed the 
world); then of the world as subsisting (Perf.): all things have 
been created through (by) him (as mediate person), and fo (for) 
him (as xvpios wavrwy in the most comprehensive sense); in 
vs. 17 apo wavtwy refers back to 8 avtod, and év ait auvéotynKev 
is explanatory of es avrov. Eph. iv. 6 eis eds Kat watip TavT@v 
0 éml TavtTwy Kal dLa TavTwy Kal év Tacw piv, i.e. God is the 
God and Father of all in every conceivable relation, (ruling) over 
all, (working) through all, (dwelling) 7m all (filling them with his 
Spirit). 2 Pet. ili. 5 yA é& bdatos kal bv bdatos cvveataca TO Oeod 
Aoyo out of water (as the material in which it lay contained) and 
through water, i.e. through the action of the water, which partly 
retired to the low places, and partly formed the clouds in the sky. 
In the parallel clauses in 1 Cor. xii. 8 f. spiritual gifts are referred, 
by the use of did, cata, év, to the wvedua from which they all origi- 
nate: da designates the Spirit as mediate agent; cata, as disposer 
(vs. 11); €v,as container. The antithesis between é« (or amo) and 
eis (the point fom and the point towards) is easily perceived, Rom. 
i. 17; 2 Cor. iii. 18 (ef. in a local reference Matt: xxiii. 84). (In 
1 Cor. viii. 6, where the corresponding prepositions refer to differ- 
ent subjects — Geos €& ot and kup. ’I. Xp. d¢ ob — there cannot 
be a moment’s doubt respecting the propriety and import of the 
prepositions. ) 


The following instances in Greek authors deserve notice as parallel : 


391 
Tth ed. 


373 


Mr. Anton. 4, 23 é« cod (& picts) ravra, év cot révra, eis o& ravra, Heliod. Mth ed. 


2,25 mpd mévrwv Kat éxt maow, Philostr. Apoll. 3, 25 rods éxt Oadarry Te 
kat év Oodarry, Isocr. big. p. 846 ra piv i? Spdv, ra 8 pel ipdv, ra Se BC 
ipas, 740 brép tpav, Acta Ignat. p. 368 8 ob cal pel? od ro rarpi dda. 
Other instances may be seen in Wetst. II. 77 and Fr. Rom. II. 556. 


T. When two or more substantives dependent on the same prep- 439 


osition immediately follow one another joined together by a copula, 


1 Theodoret has thus explained the passage: aitbs ra mdvta memotnkev, avTos To 
yeyovdta SiareAe? KuBepvav ... es wotbp apopav &rayTas mposHKer jmép wev TOV jmaptavTwy 
xdpiv duoroyovrtas, aitotyras & thy éreita mpounderay, avT@e Se xpy kal Thy mposnKouvg av 
dvaréurew SotoAoylay. 


392 
ith ed, 


440 


420 §50,. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 


the preposition is most naturally repeated, if the substantives in 
question denote things which are to be conceived as distinct and 
independent, Weber, Demosth. p. 189 (as to Latin, see Kritz, 
Sallust. I. 226; Zumpt, Gr. S. 601 f.); but not repeated, if the 
substantives fall under a single category, or (if proper names) 
under one common class: 

a. Luke xxiv. 27 ap&dpevos ad Macéws kat aro tavtev Tov 
mpopntav (Actsxv.4); 1 Thess. i. 5 év duvadpes kal ev mrvevpate ayio 
Kal €v TAnpopopia TOAAH, Jno. xx. 2; 2 Tim.iii.11; Acts xxviii. 2; 
Mark vi. 4; x. 29; xii. 83; Rev. vi. 9. Hence it is almost always 
repeated when two nouns are connected together by cal... Kat 
(Bremi, Lys. p.3sq.) or te... kad, as in Acts xxvi. 29 Kal év oriy@ 
kal €v ToAX@ (the two are incompatible with each other), Luke 
xxii. 33; 1 Cor. ii. 3; Philem. 16; Acts xvii. 9; cf. Xen. Hier. 
1, 5 (but Soph. Trach. 879); Phil. i. T é re rots decpots pov Kat 
év 7 atrodoyia, Acts xxv. 23 etc. (cf. Xen. Cyr. 1, 6, 16; Thue. 
Si pDiods 8219) 869 20; ot Pause Anse 2. 

b. Jno. iv. 23 év wvevpati Kai adnOeta (two aspects of one com- 
prehensive notion) see Liicke, Luke xxi. 26 ard doBov Kat mposéo- 
kias TV éwepyouéevev (essentially one state of mind), Eph. i. 21 ; 
1 Thess. i. 8; Acts xvi. 2; xvii. 15 (cf. Xen. Cyr. 1, 2, 15 eae 
HtheNic..7j hin. + Dhuei8n7 2a seeeeRauss 10520) 2), also when 
the substantives are sontisotal by Te... Kal, as in sts XXViii. 23 azo 
Te Tov vopov Mwcéws Kal Tov mpopnTay, 1. 8; xxvi. 20 (Franke, 
Demosth. p. 65), Paus. 10, 37,2; 25,23; Xen. Hell.1,1,3; Herod. 
6, 3,2. For instances with proper names, see Acts vi. 9 Tov amo 
Kiruelas kal’ Acias, xiv. 21 iréotpetav eis tiv Avotpav nat “Iko- 
viov Kai Avrioyevav, XVi. 2; ix. 81; Matt. iv. 25. 

If the substantives are connected disjunctively or antithetically, 


the preposition is in the former case usually, and in the latter 


always, repeated, Ool. iii. 17 8 te av route ev NOY@ 7) Ev Epyg, 
ii. 16; Matt. vii. 16,25; Luke xx. 4; Jno. vii. 48; Acts iv. 7; 
Vill; 54; Rom. ive.9 + 1 Gor ivi alisexiy. aoe oe. xi. LR ef. 
Paus. 7, 10, 1 (the MRA only in Heb. x. 28 ézi dual 1 tpiot 
paptvow, 1 Tim. v.19); Rom. iv. 10 ov« év aeputoup, adn ev 


axpoBvaotia, vi.15; viii.4; 1 Cor.ii.5; xi.17; 2 Cor.i.12; i. 3; 


1 On this passage Bengel remarks: ex praepos. repetita colligi potest, non una fuisse 
utrumque discipulum. 

2 As to the various cases in which Greek prose writers repeat a preposition after 
te kal, see Sommer in the Jahrb. f. Philol. 1831. S. 408 f. ; cf. Stallb. Phileb. p. 156; 
Weber, Dem. 189. 


§50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 491 


Tiph, i.: 21; ‘vi. 12; Jno. vii. 22;' xvii. 9, ete. CAlciphr. 1, 31).1 374 
Lastly, in comparisons the preposition is always repeated, Acts Sth ed- 
xi 18; Rom. v.19; 1 Cor. xv. 22; 2 Thess. ii. 2; Heb. iv. 10 
(as to Greek authors, see Schaef. Julian. p. 19 sq.; Held, Plut. 
Aem. 124; Krii. 284). In general, there is a greater tendency 
to repeat the preposition in the N. T. than in Greek prose (Bhdy. 
201; Krig. 284f.; Schoem. Plutarch. Cleom. p. 229), which 
frequently or usually omits the preposition, not only before a noun 
simply connected with one preceding (Bornem. Xen. conv. 159), 
but also after dvd or #% (Schaef. Dem. V. 569, 760; Plutarch. 
IV. 291; Poppo, Thue. III. IV. 493; Weber, Dem. 889; Franke, 
Dem. 6) before words in apposition (Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 112, 
247; cf. Bornem. Schol. p. 173) and in answers (Stallb. Plat. 
sympos. p. 104 sq.; Gorg. p. 88; rep. I. 237). On the other hand, 
the following passages are singular even in the N. T.: Acts xxvi: 
18 émictpéyras aro cKoToUs cis Pas Kal THs EEovcias TOD catava eri 
tov Oeov, vii. 88; 1 Cor. x. 28; Heb. vii. 27, but cf. Aristot. Eth. 
Nicom. 10, 9, 1 wepé te TovTwy Kal TOY apeTav, Ete dé Kal didréas ete. 
(see Zell, Aristot. Eth. p. 442); Lysias 1, in Theomnest. 7; Dion, 
H. IV. 2223,1; Diog. L. prooem. 6; Strabo 16, 778; Diod. Sic. 
5, 31; Plutarch. Sol. c. 8. 


In Jude 1 & is not to be repeated from the preceding clause before 
*Inood Xpis7G, as that would be harsh; but “Ino. Xp. is the dativus commodi: 
kept for Christ. Before a noun in apposition the preposition is regularly 
not repeated, Luke xxiii. 51; Eph. i. 19; 1 Pet. ii. 4; it is only in cases 
of epexegetic apposition that the repetition can take place, Rom. ii. 28 
Q ev To havepo ev TH capki Teptropy, Jno. xi. 54, (in 1 Jno. v. 20 there is 
no apposition). So also in the classics, though usually only when the 
word in apposition is separated from the principal substantive, Fritzsche, 
quaest. Lucian. p. 127; Mtth. 1402. 

The repetition of the preposition before each of a series of nouns suc- 
ceeding one another without connectives, as in Eph. vi. 12 dAAG wr pos Tas 
dpxds, mpos Tas eLovolas, TpoOs TOs KoTPOKPAaTOpAas ... POs TA TVEV[L. 
ete., Jno. xvi. 8 (cf. Arist. rhet. 2, 10, 2), is of a rhetorical nature or 
serves to give greater prominence to the several particulars, see Dissen, 893 
Pind. p. 519. ith ed. 

The preposition with which the antecedent is construed, is usually in 
Greek authors not repeated before the relative, as Plat. legg. 10, 909d. 
amo THS Nuépas, Hs av 6 warynp abrav Opry THY Oiknv, 12, 955). év tepots — 441 


vn / om a 
ois av éOéAy, 2, 659 b. ek radtod ardparos, odrep Tos Oeods érexadécaro etc. 


1 But in such antitheses the preposition is not repeated before an adjective, as 1 Pet. 
i. 23 odk €x oTopas POaprijs GAAG apOdprov. 


499 § 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 


Plat. Phaed. 21 ; Gorg. 453 e.; Lach. 192b.; Thuc. 1, 28; Xen. conv, 
ay; And, 7,17: Hiero 1, 11; Aristot. probl. 26, 4 and 16; Paus. 9, 39, 
4; cf. Bremi, Lys. p. 201; Schaef. Soph. III. 317; Dion. comp. p. 325; 
Melet. p. 124; Demosth. II. 200; Heller, Soph. Oed. C. p. 420; Ast, Plat. 
lege. p.108; Wurm, Dinarch. p. 93; Stallb. Plat.rep. II. 291; Bhdy. 208f. 
875 So, in the N. T., Acts xiii. 89 dd ravrwv, dv ok HdvvyO Te ... SuxarwOjvat, 
bth ed. duxarovras, Xiii. 2 dopioate ... €is TO Epyov, O TposkéxAnpat adtovs, Luke 
i. 25; xii. 46; Matt. xxiv. 50; Rev. ii. 13 (not 1 Cor. vii. 20); on the 
contrary, Jno. iv. 53 é éxeivy tH Spa, ev 7 etrev, Acts vii. 4; xx. 18 (Jon. 
iv. 10) cf. Demosth. Timoth. 705 b. €v tots xpdvois, év ols yéypamrae THv 
Ty Tov diaddv dpetdwv, Aristot. anim. 5, 30; Plat. Soph. 257d.; Xen. 
Cyr. 1, 2,4; Diog. L. 8, 68; Heinich. Euseb. I. 252. As to the Lat. 
see Ramshorn 8. 378; Beier, Cic. offic. I. 123. The Greek authors, also, 
readily repeat the preposition when the relative is separated by several 
words from the antecedent, Her. 1, 47; Xen. vectig. 4,13; Lucian. necyom. 
9; Dio Chr. 17, 247. 
In Greek authors, and especially in the poets, a preposition belonging 
to two successive nouns is sometimes, as is well known, expressed only 
once and that before the second noun, Hm. Vig. p. 864; Lob. Soph. Aj. 
v. 397 sq., the comment. on Anacr. 9, 22; Kiihner II. 320 ete. Such an 
instance has been supposed to occur in Phil. ii. 22 (Heinich. Euseb. II. 252) 
Ort, WS TaTpl Téexvov, TV euol edovAevcey etc. But the passage contains 
rather a variatio structurae. Paul uses ody éuoi, bethinking himself that 
he cannot well say éuwot édovAevoev: he has, as a child serves his father, 
served with me, etc. See, in general, the opposite remarks of Bhdy. p. 202; 
cf. however, Franke, Dem. p. 30. 
Note 1. It is a peculiarity of later Greek, in particular, to combine a 
preposition with an adverb, especially of place or time (Krii. 266 f.), — 
either so as to make the preposition modify the meaning of the adverb, as 
in dro mpwt Acts xxviii. 23, dr6 wépvot 2 Cor. viii. 10 ; ix. 2, da dpre Matt. 
XXvi. 29, dro rore Matt. iv. 17 Est; 21] xxvi. 16 PRs, xvi. 16], exmadae 
2 Pet. ii. 8, brepAdav 2 Cor. xi. 5; xii. 11 (cf. drépev Xen. Hiero 6, 9); 
or so as to blend with an expressive adverb a preposition that seemed 
weakened by diversified usage (cf. in German: oben auf dem Dache), as 
broKaTw, vrepavn, KaTévavtt. Sometimes also an adverb is strengthened 
by the preposition, as wapavrixa. To this class belong likewise such nu- 
merals as éarag Rom. vi. 10 etc. (Dio Cass. 1091, 91; 1156, 13, ane 
to ésazaé Franke, Demosth. p. 30, zpos amagé Malad: 7, p. 178), exit zpis 
294 Acts x. 16; xi. 10 (among the examples adduced by Kypke II. 48 is the 
Th ed, analogous eis tpis, which occurs in Her. 1, 86; Xen. Cyr. 7,1, 4; cf. Hm. 

Vig. p. 857). Many of these compounds are to be found only in writers 
442 that flourished after the time of Alexander,' some only in Scholiasts, Lob. 


1 Yet és del, és &rerra, és dpe, and the like, occur even in Thue. 1, 129, 130; 4, 63; 
8, 23. <As to ard paxpd0ev, and the like, see § 65, 2, p. 603. 


§51. USE OF PREPOSITIONS IN CIRCUMLOCUTIONS. 493 


Phryn. p. 46 sqq.; cf., however, Kiihner II. 315; several, such as a6 répvct 
‘(for which zpozépvot or éxzépvor), are not to be met with even there. 
Further, cf. Sept. dao dmodev ("2NN2) 1 Sam. xii. 20 and Thilo, Act. 
Thom. p. 25. (Consistency in the mode of writing these compounds, whether 
connected Krii. 266 or separated, has not been observed even by the most 
recent editors of the N. T.) 

Note 2. The antique usage of employing (simple) prepositions without 
a case for adverbs, has been retained, with certain restrictions, in the prose 
style of all periods, Bhdy. 196. In the N. 'T. we find but a single example 
of this: 2 Cor. xi. 23 didxovo. Xpiorod ciciv ;—imép éyw L more. The 
instances which Kypke adduces in loc. are not all similar. Usually in 
prose such prepositions are supported by a d€ or ye (werd dé is especially 
frequent) Bhdy. 198. IIpdés in addition, besides, may be best compared 


- with the above passage, e.g. Dem. 1 Aphob. 556a.; Franke, Demosth. p. 94. 


The form é with the accent thrown back for é (év), including the 
substantive verb, occurs several times, see p. 80; Bornem. (Stud. u. Krit. 
1843. §. 108 f.) attempted, but on insufficient grounds, to introduce dzo 
far from (Bttm. II. 378) in Matt. xxiv. 1. 


§51. USE «OF PREPOSITIONS IN CIRCUMLOCUTIONS. 


1. When a preposition with a noun forms a circumlocution for 
an adverb or (mostly with the aid of the article) for an adjective, 
the propriety of such a use of the preposition must be shown by a 
reference to its fundamental signification ;! a merely empirical 
treatment might lead to erroneous conclusions. Note, then, 

a.’ Amd; e.g. aro pépous Rom. xi. 25; 2 Cor. i. 14 in part (from 
a part hitherwards), aro mids (yvopns) Luke xiv. 18 unanimously 
(proceeding from one determination), with one mind. 

b. Aid with the Genitive usually denotes a mental state viewed 
as something mediate, a means: in Heb. xii. 1 60’ baropovis may 
be rendered, with (through) patience, patiently, assidue (similarly 
Rom. viii. 25 80 dopovis amrexdeydpucba etc., cf. 80 adpoavyys 
imprudenter Xen. OC. 3,1, 18, d¢ evraPeias timide Dion. H. HI. 
1360, see Pflugk, Eur. Hel. p. 41), cf. also e.g. dv aoparelas Thue. 
1,17. Ofa different nature is Heb. xiii. 22 dua Bpayéwv éréatera 
ipiv breviter —properly by means of few (words), paucis — cf. dua 
Bpaxvtatov Dem. Pant. 624c¢., and below, § 64,5. Used adjectively 


1 This is not altogether without difficulty, chiefly because in different languages 
different views of the same relation predominate, e.g. ad uépovs zum Theil, in part, 
éx detiav zur Rechten, on, at, to the right, ab oriente gegen Osten, on, to, towards the 
East. Many phrases, too, arise from abbreviation. 


376 
6th ed. 


443 


395 
Tth ed. 


ay if 
6th ed. 


444 


494 §51. USE OF PREPOSITIONS IN CIRCUMLOCUTIONS. 


2 Cor. iii. 11 ed ro Katapyovpevoy bia S0&ns etc. (above, p. 379), it 
denotes a quality with which something is invested. 

c. Eis expresses a degree (unto) which something reaches, 
Luke xiii. 11 es 76 mavterés completely (perfectly) wholly (Aelian. 
7, 2, ets eaddoTov Plat. Huthyd. 275 b., és 7d dxpuBés Thue. 6, 82); 
this, however, can hardly be called a periphrasis for the adverb. 

d. “Ex, e.g. é pépous 1 Cor. xii. 27 ex parte (forth from a part). 
‘Ex is used especially of the standard (secundum), as in é« Tov 
vouwr secundum leges, legibus convenienter (rule of conduct drawn 
as it were out of the laws) ; hence é€ icérntos according to equality, 
equally 2 Cor. viii. 13, é« wértpov by measure, moderately Jno. iii. 343 
cf. €& adixou injuste Xen. Cyr. 8, 8,18, é& icov Her. 7,135; Plato, 
rep. 8, 561 b., €« mposnxovray Thuc. 3, 67; see Ast, Plat. lege. 
p. 267; Bhdy. 230. It also denotes the source: é& avayxns Heb. 
vil. 12; cf. Thue. 8, 40; 7,27; Dio C. 853, 93 (springing out of 
necessity i.e. necessarily) ; the same explanation applies to é« 
avuudovov 1 Cor. vii. 5 ex composito, which, however, under @ 
different aspect (in consequence of an agreement), nearly comes 
under the first use. In the phrases ot é« mictews Gal. iii. T, ot é« 
mepitouns Acts x. 45, 0 é& évavtias Tit. ii. 8, oc €E épileias Rom. 
ii. 8, and the like, é« designates party (dependence on), and con- 
sequently belonging to: those of the faith, who belong to the faith ; 
who, as it were, side with faith. Cf. Polyb. 10,16,6; Thue. 8, 92. 
A relation altogether material is expressed in Mark xi. 20 é« pifav 
(out) from the roots, radicitus. The temporal é« tplrov Matt. 
xxvi. 44 (1 Macc. ix. 1; Babr. 95, 97; 107,16; Evang. apoer. 
p- 439; ef. €& terépov Her.1,108) and the like (where the German, 
on the other hand, says zwm Dritten) for the third time, is doubt- 
less most simply, out of the third, (commencing) from the third ; 
in later authors we find’ likewise é« apwtns Babr. 71, 2, é« 
deutépns 114, 5. 

e. “Ev. Instances in which év with a substantive may be taken 
adverbially, as év ddnOela, év éxtevela, év dixavoovvn Matt. xxii. 16; 
Mark xiv. 1; Col. iv. 5; Acts xvii. 31 (év dix Plat. Crat. p. 419 d., 
év taxes Thuc. 1, 90),! need explanation the less, because we too 
can employ 7m with the corresponding substantive. The substan- 
tives usually denote abstract ideas, particularly qualities or dispo- 
sitions in which one does something. The use of this preposition 


1 But in Jno. iv. 23, the words év mveduati kad ddAnOeia, dependent on mposxvyqoovar, 
must not be resolved and degraded into the adverbs myevuatinés kal aAnd@s; but év 
denotes the sphere in which the mposxuvety is exercised. 


§52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 495 


with a substantive for an adjective is equally plain, as épya ta év 396 
Sexavoavvyn, TO pévov év S0En (éo7) 2 Cor. iii. 11, and the like. —_—thed. 

2. f. “Evi is frequently construed with the Gen. of abstract 
nouns which denote either a quality with which a person acts in 
a given way (é7 ddeclas with fearlessness), or an objective notion 
with the actual existence of which something accords, as in Mark 
xii. 32 én’ adnOelas in accordance with truth, truly (Dio C. 699, 
65; 727,82). With the Dat. ed indicates, as it were, the ground 
on which something rests, Acts ii. 26 7 cdp& pov Katacknvecer 
ér éAmid. with, in hope, confidence (in God); hence securely, 
tranquilly. The phrases éwi ro atto, ép’ dcov, émi odd present 
no difficulty. 
-g. Kara. The expression 4 cata Bdabovs rrwyela 2 Cor. viii. 2 
is probably to be rendered, poverty extending to the lowest level, 
the deepest poverty (cf. Strabo 9, 419); Xen. Cyr. 4, 6, 5 is not 
parallel to this, 6 cata ys means: terra conditus. Probably the 
adverbial phrase xa? 6dov properly signifies throughout (Gn uni- 
versum), 7m general, as card with the Gen. has sometimes this 
meaning. The use of «card with the Acc. of a substantive in 
circumlocutions for adverbs, as xar’ é£ovolav, car éFoyry, Kata 378 
yvoow, requires no explanation, see Schaef. Long. p. 330 (ef. cara Mth ed 
taxos Dio. C. 84, 40; 310, 93, cata ro ioyvpov Her. 1, 76, xa? 
openv Soph. Philoct. 562, cata 7d adverrotiwov Aeschin. dial. 8, 16, 
kata 76 opOov Her. 7, 143), see Bhdy. 241. As to 4 Kar éxdoyipy 
mpoGeots Rom. ix. 11, of cata iow Krddor xi. 21, see § 30, 3, note 5. 

h. IIpos with the Acc., eg. Jas. iv. 5 rpos bOdvov invidiose, ef. 
mpos opyiv Soph. El. 369 (properly, according to envy, according 
to anger) ; besides, pos axpiPevav Sext. Emp. hypot. 1, 126 for 
axptBas. 

As to the use of the prepositions ék, card ete. in circumlocutions for 445 
certain cases, especially the Genitive, see § 30, 3, note 5 p. 192 sq. 


§52. CONSTRUCTION OF VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH 
PREPOSITIONS. 


1. Our attention here will naturally be confined to those com- 
pound verbs in which the preposition preserves its peculiar and 
independent force, and so directly governs a noun different from 
that governed by the transitive verb; as, é<SadXew to cast out from, 


avapéepew to bring up upon, ete. Accordingly, we do not speak 
54 


428 $52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 


of those in which the signification of the preposition is either ob- 

scured (e.g. amodéyer@at, atroxpiverOat, atroOvncKev), or blended 

with that of the verb into one general idea (e.g. weradiddvae impart, 

Tpoayew Twa praerre aliquem, precede some one, atrodexatovy tt to 

tithe something, cvyknetew Te enclose something), or, approximating 
397 to the nature of an adverb, serves to give intensity to the verb (e.g. 
ith el. érrofyretv, Suatereiv, Ovaxabapivew, cvvredeiy, perpugnare). 


The full import of the compound verbs of the N. T., and how far they 
may be employed for simple verbs, has not yet been investigated thoroughly 
and on rational principles; cf., however, C. F. Fritzsche: Fischer’s and 
Paulus’s Observations on the precise Import of the Prepositions in Greek 
Compound Verbs, ete. Lips. 1809. 8vo.; Tittmann de vi praepositionum 
in verbis compos. in N.'T. recte diiudicandis, Lips. 1814. 4to. (also in 
Synonym. N.T, I. 218 sqq.) ; J. v. Voorst de usu verbor. c. praeposs. 
compositor. in N.'T. Leid. 1818. 2 Spec. 8vo.; Theol. Annal. 1809. II. 
474 ff. (Brunck, Aristoph. nub. 987; Zell, Aristotel. ethic. p. 383; Stallb. 
Plat. Gorg. p. 154). Till very lately translators and expositors of the 
N. 'T. appeared to vie with each other in disregarding the exact import of 
compound verbs (cf. e.g. Seyffarth de indole ep. ad Hebr. p. 92). With 
a view to check such recklessness I have commenced a new inquiry into 
the subject: De verbor.c. praeposs. compositor. in N. T. usu, Lips. 1834 ff. 
4to.; hitherto five articles have appeared. (As to Greek authors in 
general, cf. Cattier, Gazophylac. sec. 10, p. 60 sqq. ed. Abresch; C. F. 

446 Hachenberg, de significat. praepositionum graec. in compositis. Traj. ad 
Rh. 1771. 8vo.) 


979 2. Compound verbs in which the preposition retains its dis- 
bh el. tinetive force may have one or another of the three following con- 
structions : 
a. The preposition may be repeated before the noun, as Matt. 
vii. 23 arroywpetre am’ éuod, Heb. ili. 16 ot é€eNOovres €& Aiyvrrov, 
see Born. Xen. cony. p. 219 and my second Progr. de verb. compp. 
D, (sae. or , 
b. Another preposition of substantially the same import may 
be used before the noun, as Matt. xiv. 19 avaPréas els tov 
ovpavov, Mark xv. 46 mposextruce AMMov eat THY Oupay ; or 
c. The compound verb may, without the intervention of a prep- ' 
osition, directly govern a case such as its import requires, and 
such at the same time as the preposition also commonly governs; 
as, Mark iii. 10 éwerimrrew avt@, Luke xv. 2 cvvecOler avrois, etc. 
Accordingly, verbs compounded with azo, xatd (against), po, 
take the Gen.; those compounded with zepi (Matt. iv. 23 mrepsaryew 
mov Tadiraiav, Acts ix. 3), the Acc. 


§ 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 427 


3. Which of these modes of construction is the regular one, 
must be learned from usage. Sometimes two of them, or all three 
together, occur (cf. émiBadrXeuv, likewise parallel passages such .as 
Matt. xxvii. 60 and Mark xv. 46; Jno. ix. 6 and vs. 11; Acts 
xy. 20 and vs. 29).! Yet it must not be overlooked that even in 
this case usage has often established a distinction. Thus no one g98 
will regard it as an indifferent matter whether verbs compounded 1b ed 
with eés be construed with a noun by the insertion of the preposi- 
tion e’s (pds), or with a case alone without a preposition.2 For 
instance, éxrrimTew in its proper sense takes é«; but when used 
figuratively (like spe excidere), it governs the Gen. (Gal. v. 4; 

2 Pet. iii. 17; Philostr. Apoll. 1, 836; yet see Diod. S. 17, 47).8 

So wposhépew twi of persons means, offerre alicui (aliquid) ; but 
mposhépety ert Tas cuvaywyds to bring before the synagogue(author- 447 
ities), Luke xii. 11.4 Cf. also mposépyeo@al run adire aliquem and 
Tposépy. Tpos Tov Xpiotov 1 Pet. ii. 4; eprotavae twi (of persons) 
Acts iv. 1, and édiotavac él tHv otkiay xi. 11. See, in general, 
my second Progr. de verb. compp. p. 10 sqq. 

4, The usage of the N. T. is more particularly as follows: 

1) After verbs compounded with azo, 

a) for the most part ao is repeated (cef., in general, Erfurdt, 
Soph. Oed. R. p. 225): so after amépyec@ar (followed by a personal 
noun) Mark i. 42; Luke i. 88; ii. 15; Rev. xviii. 14 (Lucian. 380 
salt. 81), after domimrew Acts ix. 18 (in a material sense, cf, shed 
Her. 3, 180; Polyb. 11, 21,3; in a figurative sense it does not 
occur in the N.'T.), adiordvar desistere a, or to withdraw from a 
person, Acis vy. 38; Luke 11.37; xiii. 27; 2 Cor: xii. 8; 1 Tim. 

vi. 5 etc. (Polyb. 1, 16,3) but 1 Tim. iv. 1, see below, dopdavi- 
feo0ar 1 Thess. 1. 17, amocmacba. Luke xxii. 41; Acts xxi. 1 
(Polyb. 1, 84,1; Dion. H. judic. Thue. 28, 5), after adopiferv Matt. 
xxv. 32, aroPawew Luke vy. 2 (Polyb. 23, 11. 4, etc.), dmoywpetv 
Matt. vii. 23; Luke ix. 39, apaipetoOar Luke x. 42; xvi. 3 (Lucian. 
Tim. 45), amaipecOar Matt. ix. 15, dmadddtrecbat Luke xii. 58; 


1 So amooriva deficere with ard in Xen. C. 5, 4, 1 and with the Gen. alone in 4, 5, 11. 

2 In prose eisiévat or eisépxeocOut eis is usually employed in a local sense, e.g. eis Thy 
oikiay; but with twd or tii (like incessere aliquem) in reference to desires, thoughts, 
etc. Demosth. Aristocr. 446 b.; Herod. 8, 8, 4, etc. Yet see Valck. Eurip. Phoen. 
1099. As to eisépxec@a in particular, see my second Progr. de verb. compp. p. 11 sq. 

3 In Greek authors aréyeoat abstinere usually takes the Gen. ; but in the N. T. it is 
sometimes followed by amé, Acts xv. 20; 1 Thess. iv. 3; v. 22. 

“Cf. m pbs trois iorots tpoxiAlas mposhprnvro Polyb. 8, 6, 5; 3, 46, 8, but (fig.) 9, 20, 
5 mposaptay ToAG TWa TH oTpaTny la. 


399 
Tth ed. 


448 


428 § 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. — 


Acts xix. 12, amoxpurtew Matt. xi. 25, dmoortpébew, Rom. xi. 26 
Sept., once also after the figurative amo@vnoKcewv Col. ii. 20 Cef. 
Porphyr. abstin. 1, 41), which elsewhere, in the composite sense 
of dying to, is construed with the Dat. (see immediately below). 

b) after avrokapBavew, wapd is used (with personal nouns), Luke 
vi. 84; cf. Diod. S. 18, 831; Lucian. pisc. 7 (a0, when the verb 
signifies to take away by force, Polyb. 22, 26, 8). | 

c) the Genitive follows amogevyew 2 Pet. i. 4 (but not in 2 Pet. 
ii. 20), aradXorpiovv Hph. ii. 12; iv. 18 (Polyb. 8, 77,7), abvoravas 
(deficere a) 1 Tim. iv. 1 (Polyb. 2, 39,7; 14,12,3), amocrepetcbat 
(igs). 1tirn. svete 

d) the Dat. is used after aroOvjckeww to die to a thing, Gal. ii. 19 ; 
Rom. vi. 2, Gin Rom. vi. 10 the Dat. is to be taken differently) ; 
similar is azroyiveo@at tats duaptiats 1 Pet. ii. 24. 

2) Verbs compounded with dvd in the local sense of up (to), 
are construed with, 

a) eis, when the place to which the motion is directed is indi- 
cated, e.g. avaBaivev to go (travel) up to Luke xix. 28; Mark 
x. 82 (Her. 9,113), or go up (upon a mountain, into heaven etc.) 
Matt. v. 1; xiv. 23; Mark iii. 138 (Herod. 1, 12, 16;. Plat. Alcib, 
1, 117b.; Dio C. 89, 97), dvaBrérrew Matt. xiv. 19 (Mark vii. 34; 
Luke ix. 16) Acts xxii. 13, dvayew Matt. iv.1; Luke ii. 22; 
Acts xx. 3 (Herod. 7,10,15), dvarawBdvec@ar Mark xvi. 19, ava- 
mimtev Luke xiv. 10, dvadépev Matt. xvii. 1; Luke xxiv. 51, 
avayopew Matt. ii. 14; iv. 12 ete., avépyecOa Jno. vi. 8; Gal. i°18. 

b) pos, principally when the point at which the motion ter- 
minates is a person; as, avaBaivew mpos Tov watepa Jno. xx. 17, 
avakaprrew Matt. ii. 12, dvarréwrew Luke xxiii. T (avaBrér. mpéds 
twa Plat. Phaed. 116 d.; Arrian. Epict. 2, 16, 41), yet és riva is 
also used in such cases Luke x. 6 (avaxaprrew cf. Diod. 8. 3,17), 
or the Dat. Luke xxiii. 11 dvawéurrew Twi. 

c) emi, when the goal of the action is to be designated definitely 
as an eminence or as a surface on which the motion terminates, 
(Polyb. 8, 381, 1 avadépew emt thy ayopav (up) to the market, on 
the other hand avaB8aivew émi tiv oixiay like the Latin ascendere 
Polyb. 10, 4, 6, avaBaivew eri StxaoTHpiov frequently in Greek 
authors). Thus we find avaBuBafew ért tov aiyarov Matt. xiii. 48 
(Xen. C. 4, 2, 28; Polyb. 7,17, 9), éwt to xrivos Luke. x. 84 
(Palaeph. 1,9; Xen. C. 4,5, 16; cf. 7,1, 38), dvacrivecOas emi 
Tovs xoptous Matt. xiv. 19, dvarimrew emt tiv yhv Matt. xv. 35 or 
éml THs yas Mark viii. 6, avaBaivew emi to Sdpa Luke v. 19, est 


§ 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 499 


ded 


ouxopopéav xix. 4 (cf. Xen. C. 4,1, 7; 6,4,4; Her. 4, 22; Plut. 
educ. 7, 13; Arrian. Epict. 3, 24, 33; Lys.1; Alcib. 10; Paus. 6, 381 
4, 6), dvadhépew érl 7d EiXov upon the wood (cross) 1 Pet. ii. 24,) he 
dvakdprrew ert Luke x. 6 (Plut. educ. 17, 15). 

3) Verbs compounded with av7i (against) are regularly fol- 
lowed by the Dat., as Matt. vii. 2; Luke xiii. 17; Jno. xix. 12; 
Rom. xiii. 2 etc.; yet see Heb. xii. 4 avtaywriterPar tpos te (cf. 
vs. 3 1%) els avTov ayTiAoyia) , similar to which is advtieto bac pds 
Polyb. 2, 66, 3; Dio C. p. 204 and 777. 

4) Verbs compounded with é« are sometimes followed by that 
preposition (i.e. when out of is to be expressed), and sometimes 
merely by azo or wapa (i.e. when merely direction from or from 
the vicinity of is indicated) : thus é«Badrew é« Matt. xiii. 52; Jno. 

ii. 15; 3 Jno. 10, etc. (Plat. Gorg. 468d.) and amo Matt. vii. 4, 
exkrivew ato 1 Pet. iii. 11; Rom. xvi. 17, éxxomrew é« Rom. xi. 24 
(Diod. S. 16, 24), éxmimrew é« Acts xii. 7 (Arrian. Ind. 30, 3), 449 
exreyeoOas é€x Jno. xv. 19 (Plat. lege. T p. 81la.), éxmopeverOar ex 
Matt. xv. 11,18; Rev.ix. 18 (Polyb. 6, 58,4) and ao Mark vii. 15 400 
(var., not Matt. xxiv. 1) or wapa Jno. xv. 26, éxdedyew é« Acts Ted. 
xix. 16, é€aipew and é€arpeiv éx 1 Cor. v.2; Acts xxvi.1T, é&épyerOau 

éx Matt. ii. 6; Acts vil. 3 etc. (Her. 9,12) or wapa Luke ii. 1. 

On the other hand these verbs are but rarely construed with the 
Genitive, never when used in a local sense except eEépyer@ar Matt. 

x. 14 (and even there not quite indubitably, see the variants; yet 

cf. éxBaivew twos Jacobs, Philostr. p. 718); when used figuratively, 
however, the Gen. is constant with éxmimrew (like spe excidere) 
Gal. v. 4; 2 Pet. iii. 17; Plat. rep. 6, 496c.; Lucian. contempl. 

14 (yet with é« Her. 8, 14; Dio C. p. 1054, 57), and ékxpéuacar 
Luke xix. 48. Lastly, éxpevyew even in a physical sense takes 
the Acc. (of the force): 2 Cor. xi. 38 éxpetyew tas yeipds twos 
(Sus. 22), cf. Her. 6,40 and frequently ; é« occurs after this verb 
merely to denote locality in Acts xix. 16 éxgpuyely éx Tod olkou, ef. 
Sir. xxvii. 20. 

5) The construction of verbs compounded with év is very sim- 
ple: when they signify direction éo (towards) something, they 
are followed by es; when they denote rest in, or on, a place, they 
are followed by év, e.g. éwBaivew eis Matt. viii. 23; xiv. 22; Jno. 

- vi. 17 (Her. 2, 29; Plat. Crat. 897 a.), éw@arrew els Luke xii. 5 
(Dio C. p. 288, 79; Plat. Tim. 91 ¢.; Lucian. Tim. 21), ¢u8arrew 
els Mark xiv. 20 (but with év Matt. xxvi. 23 dip in the dish), 


1 With the Acc. alone we find dvaBalvew trmov, Dion. H. 2252, 7; Pausan. 10, 19, 6, 


420 §52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 


éuPBrérrew eis Matt. vi. 26; Acts i. 11, éuiarew eis Luke x. 36 

(Her. 7,48; Plat. Tim. 84c.; Lucian. Hermot. 59) 1 Tim. iii. 6, 

eumrvew eis Matt. xxvi. 67; xxvii. 80, but évdnpet év 2 Cor. v. 6, 

éevoixetv €v 2 Cor. vi. 16; Col. iii. 16 (with Acc. Her. 2,178), évepyeiv 

év Phil. ii. 138; Hph. i. 20 ete., éyypadew év 2 Cor. iii. 2 (like éyyAv- 

dew ev Her. 2, 4), eupéver év (1H dvaOnxn) Heb. viii. 9. At the 

same time, in both significations the construction with the Dat. 

occurs not unfrequently, cf. éuBrérew twi (of a person) Mark 

x. 21, 27; Luke xxii. 61; Jno. i. 36, 48 (Plat. rep. 10, 609d 

Polyb. 15, 28,3), éwarrvew tui Mark x. 384; xiv.65; xv.19, éupéverv 

twt (aiotes) Acts xiv. 22 (Xen. Mem. 4, 4, 4; Lycurg. 19, 4; 

382 Lucian. Tim. 102). ’Evtpudav to revel in something is construed 

hel. in Greek authors with the Dat. alone (e.g. Diod. 8S. 19, 71); on 

the other hand, in 2 Pet. ii. 18 év is repeated. In Rom. xi. 24 

eyxevtpiGew is construed first with ecs and then with the Dat. 

6) Still more simple is the construction of verbs compounded 

with eis, such as elsayewv, eismropever@ar, eishépen, etsépyerOat; Viz. 

450 they uniformly repeat eds, cf. Poppo, Thue. III. I. 210; yet see Hm. 
Kurip. Ion p. 98, and my second Progr. de Verb. compp. p. 18. 

7) Of the verbs compounded with é7/, some are construed with 

that preposition (niore rarely with es), and some with the Dative 

alone; yet many take either construction indifferently: émBadrew 

ets (into) or ei te (upon Plat. Prot. 834b.) Mark iv. 87; Luke 

. vy. 863 ix.62, also with the Dat. of the person 1 Cor. vil. 85; Mark 

A401 xi. 7; Acts iv. 3 (Polyb. 8, 2,8; 38, 5, 5),! éwu8atve emi or eis 

ithe. Acts xxi. 6; xx. 18 (Matt. xxi. 5), also with a local Dat. Acts 

xxvii. 2 (Polyb..1, 5, 2; Diod. S. 16, 66), éwiBrérew eri Luke 

i. 48; Jas. ii. 3; Plut. educ. 4, 9 (with es Plat. Phaedr. 68 a.), 

érrixetcOar emt Twe Jno. xi. 38, also with the Dat. of the person 

1 Cor. ix. 16, ésremimrew ért te Luke i. 12; Acts x. 10, or ead tive 

Acts viii. 16, or with the Dat. of the person Mark iii. 10; Acts 

xx. 10 (Polyb. 1, 24, 4), émuppimrew émi tu 1 Pet. v. 7, émuriOévar 

emi Tt Mark iv. 21; Matt. xxiii. 4; Acts ix. 17 etc., or with the 

Dative, mostly of the person Luke xxiii. 26; Mark vil. 82; Acts 

ix. 12; 1 Tim. v. 22 ete., rarely of the thing Jno. xix. 2 (Lucian. 

Tim. 41, 122), ésrépyeo@ae emi t. Luke i. 85; Acts vill. 24; xiii. 40 

or with the Dative of the thing Luke xxi. 26, évraipew é7i or els Te 

Jno. xiii. 18; Luke xviii. 18, évotxodopety eri ve 1 Cor. ili. 12 or 


1 On émBddrAew Thy xeEipa emt tiva and vivt (Lucian. Tim. 10) in particular, see Fr. 
Mr. p. 637. We find in a material sense in Polyaen. 5, 2, 12 mola méAet Bovadoito 
émimAcvVoa. 


§ 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 431 


twe Eph. ii. 20, but also ev Col. ii. 7, émidety emi re Acts iv. 29, 
émipépew with the Dat. of the thing Phil. i. 17, édixveto@ar eis twa 
2 Cor. x. 14, ébarreoOar eri twa Acts xix.16 (1 Sam, x.6; xi.6). 
On the other hand, évvypadew is construed with ev, 2 Cor. iii. 2 
ef. Plat. de lucri cupid. p. 229 etc.; Palaeph. 47, 5 (differently in 
Num. xvii. 2; Prov. vii. 3). “Emexretveo@au Phil. ili. 14 (stretch 
one’s self out after) and, when joined to names of persons, émudai- 
vew and émidavey invariably take the Dative alone, Eph. v. 14; 
Luke i. 79 (cf. Gen. xxxv. 7); so also does évidépevy in the sense 
of adding something to something, Phil. i. 17. ’Emvucxiafew has 
sometimes the Dative of the person, as in Acts v. 15 and probably 
in Mark ix. 7 (to make a sheltering shade for one, cf. Ps. xe. 4), 
and sometimes the Acc. Matt. xvii. 5; Luke ix. 84 (overshadow, 
envelope, as transitive). In the Sept. we find also émvcxidt. émi 
Twa Ps. cxxxix. 8; Exod. xl. 32. 

8) Of the verbs compounded with é&d, there are but few in 
which the preposition is particularly prominent: cf. in the N. T. 
duatropever Oar Sia orropiuwy Luke vi. 1, cf. D. S. exc. Vat. p. 30 
(but we find also dca7ropever@at moneus, yet in the sense of obire, 451 
Acts xvi. 4), duépyec@ar dia Matt. xii. 43; 2 Cor. i. 16 to pass 
through (and consequently out of ) something, cf. Strabo 8, 332, 
and the pregnant dvacwfew bv vdatos 1 Pet. iii. 20. Most of them 
are construed like transitives, with the Acc., e.g. dvamreiv sail 383 
through Acts xxvii. 5, likewise dépyecOar when it signifies pass ‘th ed. 
through Luke xix. 1; Acts xv. 8, dvaBaivey Heb. xi. 29 ete. 

9) Verbs compounded with «ata which denote an action de- 
scending upon a local point, take ao or é« when the terminus 
a quo is to be expressed, e.g. xataSaivew amd Tov otpavod Luke 
ix. 54; 1 Thess. iv. 16, cataB. éx tod ovp. Jno. iii. 13; vi. 41; 
when the ¢erminus ad quem is to be indicated (Dio C. 108, 23; 
T41, 96) they take és, e’s, or mpds, according to the respective 
nature of the point in view, Luke xxii. 44; Mark xiii. 15; Acts 
xiv. 11, perhaps the Dative alone in Acts xx. 9 xatadépecOae ive.) 

On the other hand, caOjcOar, xabifeiv, xatariO&var & ti signify 402 
to set down on some place, etc. Karnyopeiy to accuse, in as far Th ed 
as the notion of card is retained, is usually construed with the 
Gen. of the person; xatnyopely TL KaTad Twos occurs once, Luke 
xxii. 14, and similarly éyxaXeiv Kata twos Rom. viii. 33; cf Soph. 
Philoct. 328. Analogous to xatnyopety with the Gen. is Rom. 


1 As we find elsewhere katapéperOat eis Srvov or é¢’ bmvw, see Kiihnél in loc. Other- 
wise trvw might also be taken as Ablative. 


Py 


4 


439 § 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 


xl. 18 Kataxavyacbai twos boast against something cf. Jas. ii. 18, 
and xatawaprupeiy Tivos Matt. xxvi. 62; xxvii. 13; but xcataxavy. 
Kata Tivos Jas. ill. 14. 

10) Verbs compounded with werd in which this preposition 
signifies trans, as petaBaive, petapoppovy, wetacynuarivew, wera- 
voew, petouxie etc., naturally take eés to denote passing over into, 
cf. Vig. p. 639. 

11) Verbs compounded with vrapa, are followed by azo or rapa 
(yet see § 47 pp. 865, 869 ff.) when the place whence is to be ex- 
pressed, e.g. Acts i. 25 ad’ js (atroaTtoAns) wapéBn (Deut. xvii. 20; 
Josh. xi. 15, etc.), according to others é& 5 (Deut. ix. 12, 16) ; 
TaparauBavew amo twos 1 Cor. xi. 23 and mapa v. 1 Thess. iv. 1; 
2 Thess. ili. 6, Trapapepewy avo Tt. Mark xiv. 36; Luke xxii. 42, 
mapépyec@a aro. Matt. v. 18; Mark xiv. 35. 

12) Most verbs Echonrden with zepé have become regular 
transitives, and accordingly govern the Acc.; as, wepsépyerOar 
1 Tim. v. 13 (obire), qepiSovvivar Eph. vi. 14, weprictdvas Acts 
xxv. 7. In a material sense, with wep: repeated, we find once 

452 mepractpartev Acts xxil. 6 (in the parallel passage Acts ix. 8 it 
is used as transitive), 7repifovvvcba Rev. xv. 6 (wept ta otHOn), 
meptxetobar Mark ix. 42; Luke xvii. 2 (wepitomacOas Luke x. 40), 
but with Dat. wepemimrew (Anotats, wecpacmots) Luke x. 80; Jas. 
i. 2 (Thue. 2,54; Polyb. 3,53,6; Lycurg. 19, 1) and wepixeioOan 
Heb. xii. 1. 

13) Of verbs compounded with spo, only zpomopevec@ar Luke 
i. 76 repeats the preposition: spomopevon mpo mposwirou Kupiov 
(Deut. ix. 3); in the Sept. év@zvoy is also used Ps. Ixxxiv. 14; 
xevi. 3 and epiampon te Gen. xxxii. 16; Isaiah lviii. 8. So in Luke 
i. 17 rpocdevoetas évarrioy avTod (but in xxii. 47 mponpyerTo avTovs). 
Further, see above, No. 2 

14) Verbs compounded with zpos repeat that preposition when 
towards in a local sense is to be indicated, e.g. mposmimrew mpos 
Tovs modas Tivos Mark vii. 25; ef. Dio C. 982, 82; 1275, 53 (but » 
mposmumrety tots yovaot Diod. 8. 17, 18), mopsaea lag TpOs TOUS 

884 mwatépas Acts xiii. 836; also mposkoAdaGoOae mpos THY yuvaixa cleave 
bth el. to is wife Mark x. 7; Eph. v. 81. On the other hand, with émi 
in Matt. vi. 27 wpostiOévas emt tiv jAtxiav. More rarely the Dat. 
alone is used, e.g. mposépy. Opes Heb. xii. 22, wposmlarewv oixta Matt. 
vii. 25 (Xen. eq. 7,65; Philostr. Apol. v. 21), and of direction, 
mposhavely tive call to Matt. xi. 16; Acts xxii. 2, ef. Diod. 8.4, 
48 (but rposhavety tiva call one hither Luke vi.13). On the other 


e 





§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 433 


hand, the Dat. alone is almost invariably used when the object ap- 493 
proached is a person, e.g. wposiimtew tui (to fall down before Tthed. 
one) Mark iii. 11; v. 83; Acts xvi. 29, wposhépew tui (Philostr. 
Apol. v. 22), wposépyer@ai tw to draw near to one, or when 
the approaching is itself to be taken figuratively, e.g. mposayew 
T® Ged to bring to God 1 Pet. ii. 18 Gin Sept. wposayev 7 Kupio 
frequently), wposxAiver@ai tit to attach one’s self to Acts v. 36 
cf. mposéyew Twi Heb. vii. 13; Acts xvi. 14, rposevyec@al tur Matt. 
vi. 6; 1 Cor. xi. 13, wpostiOévas Aoyou Twi Heb. xii. 19, rpostiPec Oat 
TH éexxdynolia Acts ii. 41. If the verb implies rest (apés tive), it is 
construed either thus with the Dat. alone, as mposwévery revi Acts — 
xi. 23; 1 Tim. v. 5, wposedpevery 1 Cor. ix. 13 (Polyb. 8, 9,11; 38, 
5, 9), mposxaptepeiv Mark iii. 9; Col. iv. 2; Rom. xii. 12; cf. Polyb. 
1,55,4; 1,59, 12; Diod. S. 20, 48 ete., or (in strictly local rela- 
tions) with év, e.g. wpospévery ev "Edéow 1 Tim. i. 3. ; 

15) Verbs. compounded with ovv but rarely repeat that preposi- 
tion Col. ii. 13 (cufwo7rovety), or take instead of it wera (Weber, 
Demosth. 210) Matt. xxv. 19 (cuvaipew), 2 Cor. viii. 18 (oupzrép- 
mew), Matt. xx. 2 (cuppwveiy), xvii. 3 (ovAdaAev), Mark xiv. 54; 453 
they are most frequently construed with the Dat. alone, instances 
of which occur on nearly every page of the N. T. (also in 1 Cor. 
xiil. 6; Jas. ii. 22, not in Rom. vii. 22). In classical Greek this 
construction is almost the only one used. Acts i. 26 cuvyxatewn- 
dpicOn peta TOV évdexa aTrooTéAwy is a pregnant expression. 

16) Of the verbs compounded with vzo none repeat the prepo- 
sition ; but when they denote direction towards (irayew, trootpé- 
dew etc.) they take eds or mpos, and when the d7o means under, 
as in v7omdetv, they are used as transitives. 

17) Verbs compounded with éép are for the most part used 
absolutely. Only wzepevtvyxavew repeats vrep Rom, viii. 26 (var.), 
ef. Judith v. 21; Sir. xxxvi. 27; and vzepdpoveiv is construed with 
mapa in Rom. xii. 38. ‘TwepBaivew in 1 Thess. iv. 6 and drrepiety 
in Acts xvii. 30 are used transitively in a figurative sense. 


Note. The N.T. contains no decided instance of the usage, not very 
rare in Greek authors, according to which the preposition of a compound 
verb influences also a second verb (Franke, Dem. p. 80). 


§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 


1. Conjunctions, particles designed to connect words and sen- 


tences, classify themselves according to the various species of 
55 


434 § 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 


connection, which are the same in all cultivated languages and are 
285 eight in number (Kru. 308); cf. O. Jahn, grammaticor. gr. de 
het. conjunctionibus doctrina Gryph. 1847. 
The primitive conjunctions are monosyllabic: «ad, Tot, Te, O€, Mev, 
404 obv. Many are obviously derived from pronouns or adjectives : 
ith el. Gre, Ort, @s, ToL, GAAd etc. Others are compound: éay (e av), 
evel, STE, yap (ye apa), Tovvy etc. Some are construed with a 
454 particular mood according to their signification (ei, éav, va, d7ras, 
ére etc.). See, in general, Hm. emend. p. 164 sqq. 

The principal conjunctions (of all the various classes) used in 
Greek prose are employed in the N.T., and in their legitimate 
senses. But tot, wnv (by themselves) do not occur; many com- 
pounds also, the more refined niceties of expression (e.g. yoov), 
were unnecessary in the style of the N. T. 


It is further to be specially remarked, that causal conjunctions (as ott, 
evel, é7e10yn) originally designated for the most part something present, 
either tangible or temporal ;—a connection of ideas observable also in 
the case of prepositions (p. 3860 sq.), and which occurs likewise in Latin 
and German (quod, quoniam, quando, quandoquidem, weil). 


*2. The most simple and most general connection of words and 
sentences, the mere coupling of contiguous words and sentences, 
is formed by «ad and re (e¢é and que), the latter of which occurs 
oftenest in Luke, particularly in the Acts, and then in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews: Matt. ii. 13 wapddaBe 76 raidlov Kal Tiv pntépa 
avTov Kat dedye els AlyuTrrov, Acts x. 22 avipp doBovpevos T. Bedv, 
papTupovpevos TE UTTO dAOU Tod EOVvous; iv. 18 PewpodvTes ... EOavpa- 
Lov, émeyivwokdy te avtovs etc. The distinction between xaé and 
te is this: xa’ is conjunctive (of something co-ordinate), Te is 
adjunctive (of something accessary). Says Hermann, «ai con- 
jungit, re adjungit ; with which ef. Klotz, Devar. II. 744.2, Hence 
ve denotes rather an internal (logical) relation ; «a/, rather an 


external. 
4 


Observation shows that in the N.T. also re* designates something 


1 Schleiermacher, Hermen. S. 66 goes too far; on 8. 130 his opinion is more correct. 
It is only in reference to the position of certain conjunctions that the language of the 
N. T. departs from the earlier prose. 

2 Cf. the different views of philologists as to kai and te (originating in to. Hm. Soph. 
Trach. 1015) Hm. Vig. 8385; ad Eurip. Med. p. 331 ; Hand de partic. te, Jen. 1832. 
2 Progr. 4to.; Bhdy. 482 f.; Sommer in the n. Jahrbiich. f. Philol. 1831. III. 400 f. ; 
Hartung, Part. I. 58 ff. 

8 As to the Latin que, see Zumpt, Gr. § 333; Hand, Tursellin. II. 467 sq. ; ef. Baie. 
meister, tiber die Copulativpartikeln im Latein. Luckau, 1853. 4to. 


§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 435 


additional, supplementary, explanatory, flowing from what precedes, or 
even its details (Rost 722 f.), Jno. vi. 18; Acts ii. 338, 87; iv. 83; v. 42; 
Saree yiits, 20, oly XxX. 29,48 3° x1,/21 3) xi,-6 jo xv 4, 39.5. xix. 12;,xx..7; 

xxi. 18; Rom. xvi. 26 ;— hence usually something of inferior importance, 
Jno. iv. 42; Acts xvi. 34. Sometimes, however, re has the effect to give 455 
prominence: in Heb. ix. 1 efye cat 7 mpwrn (diab jKn) dikawwpara arpetas 

76 TE Gytov Koopikov, the last particular is subjoined by re as something 
specific and implied in dix. Aarp.; but when the author in vs. 2 sqq. speaks 495 
of the sanctuary in detail, he takes this specification as his leading idea. ith al. 
There is nothing strange in this; for that which is not co-ordinate (kai) 386 
with what precedes but is merely annexed to it, may just as well, accord- bib ed 
ing to circumstances, be more important as less; cf., further, Heb. xii. 2. 
Indeed, it may be remarked generally (Klotz 1. c.), that the private views 

of the writer often have much to do in deciding him to choose re; and 
that re and dé were early interchanged in the N. T. by transcribers (Acts 
Wue20; Vill. 6; ix. 24; xi. 13; xii. 8,125 xiil..44; xxvi. 20, etc.). 

3. In the N.T., as in the Biblical style generally, the simple 
connection by means of «av! is often chosen, even where in a more 
artificial diction some more specific conjunction would have been 
employed. This circumstance led the earlier biblical philologists 
to the erroneous assumption, that in the N.'T. «ad, like the Hebrew 
4, was a sort of conjunction-general, combining in itself the signifi- 
cations of all conjunctions whatever, and of many adverbs besides 
(see still Schleusner’s lexic. under the word). 

But in the N.T., as in Greek authors (Klotz, Devar. II. 635), 
kai has only two significations: and and also.2. These significa- 
tions, however, coiaprehend several shades of meaning, which we 
express by special words:: thus also is intensified into even, vel, 
adeo (Fr. Rom. I. 270; Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 50). In many 
passages, however, this is not the case, but caé as a simple copula 
was chosen by the writer either in accordance with the simplicity 
of Biblico-Oriental thought, or designedly on rhetorical grounds ; 
sometimes both causes concur. A translator should not efface the 
coloring of the style by employing more specific conjunctions. 


1 The and uniting separate clauses deserves perhaps special mention only in the case, 
often overlooked, where a writer tacks one O. T. quotation to another e.g. Acts i. 20 
yernOnte 7) emavdis ... év ait (Ps. Ixix.), eal rhy émoxowhy ... Etepos (Ps. cix.) ; 
Heb. i. 9 f. (see Bleek) ; Rom. ix. 33. 

2 Klotz, as above: In omnibus locis, ubicunque habetur «a/ particula, aut simpliciter 
copulat duas res, aut ita ponitur ut practer alias res, quae aut re vera positae sunt aut 
facile cogitatione suppleri possunt, hance vel illam rem esse aut fieri significet, et in 
priore caussa und reddi solet, in posteriore etiam, quoque, vel, sicuti res ac ratio in 
singulis locis requirit. 


456 


436 § 538, CONJUNCTIONS. 


In the narrative style, especially of the first three Gospels, the several 
facts are usually strung together in simple succession by cai; whereas the 
use of d€ or otv, pera TodTO, cita, etc. instead would give more variety, 
and participial and relative constructions would distinguish with greater 
clearness dese from subordinate matters: Matt. i. 24 f. 7 ope 7H 
jae QvTOU Kal OvK eyivwoKev avTny €ws ou eTEKEV vlov, Kal exaAecev TO 
dvopa avtod ‘Inooty, iv. 24 f.; vil. 25,27; Luke v.17, see § 60. The case 
in which a specification of time is given and then the event attached to it 
by xat, deserves particular attention; as, Mark xv. 25 jv dpa tpirn Kal 
éoTavpwoav airov (a supplementary statement, as it were, to vs. 24) @ 
was the third hour and (when) they crucified him ; — where ore was early 


406 substituted as a correction. From this we must distinguish Luke xxiii. 44 


7th ed 


WV ase Opa ExTN Kat oKOTOS eyévero, where if dre were used the time would 


387 be brought out as the principal matter, and the event regarded as subor- 


6th ed, 


457 


dinate; both, however, are to be represented as co-ordinate, — hence kai. 
This structure of a sentence is found also in Greek authors (Mtth. 1481 ; 
Mav. 214), e.g. Plat. symp. 220c¢. ndy jv peonpBpia Kai, dvOpwrot jo Oavorto, 
Arrian. Al. 6, 9, 8 45y mpos tH eradte Hv Kat... d6a, Thuc. 1, 50; Xen. 
A.1,1,8. Still more unlike is the case when, in prophetic announcements, 
the time is first specified and then a clause annexed with xa/,—a con- 
struction which imparts greater solemnity to the discourse: Luke xix. 435 
Heb. viii. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 52. In exhortations also, like airetre Kat doOjoeran 
tpiv, Luke x. 28 rotro ote. kat fjon, the co-ordination of the two verbs 
is more forcible than such a construction as rotro zodv fyon (Franke, 
Demosth. p. 61). Cf. Demosth. olynth. 8, 11 ¢. épare 7a30° obras Sas... 
Kal duvnoec Oe efvevat Kat pc boy €SeTE. 

In such sentences as 1 Cor. v. 2... and ye are puited up, Matt. iii. 14 
I have need to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me, Jno. vi. 70 
have I not chosen you...? and one of you is a traitor, xi. 8; xiv. 30; 
Heb. iii. 9, surprise or sorrow is more eloquently expressed by the simple 
and than by the more sonorous however, nevertheless, notwithstanding ; in 
the mere contraposition of the clauses the contrast speaks as it were for 
itself. On the other hand, in Matt. xxvi. 53 7) Soxets, d7e ob dvvayou ape 
ropaxadécarT. rarépa prov Kal rapacTycel jot TAEW OwdEKA Aeyedvas dyyédwy 3 
Heb. xii. 9 od roAd paddAov trotaynodpeba TO Tarpl T. Tvevpatov Kal Cyooper ; 
Jas. v. 18; Rev. xi. 8, that which was the object or aim of the first act, 
and might have been so represented (wa.. .), is by means of the consecu- 
tive «af raised to independence as a result, since the writer wished to 
impart to it the greatest possible emphasis. A Greek author to produce 
such effect would pypbably have laid out the sentence fron the outset as 
follows: od zodd paddov brorayevres TH TaTpl... Cyoopev; See, further, 
Rom. xi. 35; Mark i. 27; Matt. v.15; cf. Ewald 653 (Sept. Ruth i. 11; 
Jonah i. 11). From later Greek may be quoted Malal. 2. p. 39 éxéAeuce 


Kal exavOn 7) pvo|epa kepary THs Lopydvos. 


§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 437 


As to the other uses of xai, inasmuch as they are referrible to the signi- 
fications and and also, we have only to note: 

a. Kaé before interrogatives, Mark x. 26 kat ris divatar cwjvar; Luke 
x. 29; Jno. ix. 36; 1 Pet. iii. 13; 2 Cor. ii. 2 (familiar enough from the 
Greek authors, Plat. Theaet. 188 d.; Xen. Cyr. 5, 4,13; 6, 3,22; Lucian. 
Herm. 84; Diog. L. 6,93; D.S. exe. Vat. p. 30; the Latin et, too, is so 
used), comes under the signification and. We also say, Und was that er ? 
And what did he do?—in an abrupt, hurried question, barring further 
discussion. On the other hand, xaé never occurs in the N. T. before the 
Imperative to imply urgency (Hoogeveen, doctr. partic. I. 538 sqq.; Har- 
tung I. 148). All the instances formerly alleged in support of this usage 
are of a different nature. In Matt. xxiii. 82 the «ai is consecutive: ye 
profess to be sons ete., fill ye up then etc. In Luke xii. 29 «ai denotes 
also or and (consequently). In Mark xi. 29 xaé is and; in 1 Cor. xi. 6 
also. The strengthening kai after interrogatives, as in Rom. viii. 24 6 yap 407 
Brérer tis, rd Kat eAriler; why doth he yet hope for? is reducible to the hed. 
sense of also. 

b. Kai never occurs strictly as adversative. In the first place, passages 
in which xat ov, cat on (Fr. Mr. p. 31), xat odes, etc. occurs — Matt. xi.17 ; 388 
xil. 89; xxvi. 60; Mark i. 22; vii. 24; ix. 18; Jno. iii, 11, 382; vii. 30 6th ed. 
(on the contrary, vs. 44); x. 25; xiv. 30; Acts xii. 19; Col. ii. 8, ete. — 
must be set aside, as in these the contrast lies in the negation, and is neither 
strengthened by d€ nor weakened by a simple xaé (Schaef. Dem. I. 645). 
Even in such sentences as Mark xii. 12 éfyrovv atrov kparnoa K. eboBnOnocav 
tov oxXov, 1 Thess. ii. 18 7OeAjocapev eAOety pds bas ... Kal evexoWev pas 
6 caravas, Jno. vil. 28; 1 Jno. v. 19, the writer probably viewed the two 
particulars as co-existing side by side, though we are more inclined to 
emphasize the opposition. And in Acts x. 28; Matt. xx. 10 (the first 
supposed that they would receive more ; and they also received every man 
a denarion) we also employ and to give prominence to an unexpected 
result, see above. No one now will think it strange that in 1 Cor. xii. 4, 

5, 6 dé and xaé are used alternately. Lastly, in 1 Cor. xvi. 9 two circum- 
stances (one favorable and one unfavorable) detaining Paul in Ephesus 
are united; xai therefore is the simple copula.! 

e. The epexegetical, more closely defining, kai namely (Hm. Philoct. 458 
1408; Bremi, Demosth. p. 179; cf. Ve. Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. p. 9; 
Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 33 sq.; Weber, Demosth. p. 438) is primarily only 
and (and indeed), Jno.i. 16 out of his fulness have we all received, namely 
(that is) grace for grace, 1 Cor. iii. 5; xv. 88; Eph. vi. 18; Gal. vi. 16; 
Heb. xi. 17; Acts xxiii. 6. But this force has been attributed to xaé in 
too many passages: in Matt. xiii. 41; xvii. 2; xxi. 5 xai is simply and. 


1 So early a scholar as Hoogeveen perceived that but (however) is not the proper 
meaning of kat : sciant non ex se sed ex oppositorum membror. natura hanc (notionem) 
nactam esse cai particulam (doctr. particul. I. 533). 


408 
Tth ed. 


389 
6:4 ed. 


4 


9 


438 § 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 


In Mark xi. 28 the true reading [sustained also by Cod. Sin.] is probably 7. 
In Matt. iii. 5 to render kai 7 wepixwpos Tod “Topdavov by namely the country 
about the Jordan, would be to join an incongruous adjunct to  ‘Iovdaia, as 
the two geographical notions do not exactly coincide nor is the former 
comprehended in the latter. The phraseology resembles, All Hesse and 
the Rhine-region ; all Baden and Breisgau, cf. Krii. 318. In the expres- 
sion 6cds kat waryp the meaning of Kai is simply and (at the same time), 
not namely, that vs. 

d. It may be doubted whether «ai ever signifies especially (Bornem. 
Luc. 78; Fr. Mr. p. 11) when to a general term one that is special and 
strictly speaking already included in the former is added: in Mark i. 5 
e€eropevero Tac0 7) ‘lovdaia ywpa Kai ot “‘IepocoAvpirae mavres, xvi. 7 the 
specification is made prominent by its very position, but xaé simply signifies 
and. Cf. Heb. vi. 10. On the other hand, when a special term precedes, 
kat is sometimes put immediately before the general expression which 
includes the former, as in Matt. xxvi. 59 ot dpyxvepets Kal ot mperBvrepor 
kat TO ovvédptov OAov and (in one word, to sum up) the whole sanhe. 
drim, see Fr. Mt. 786; Mr. 652; cf. Ve. Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. p. 67 , 
Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 83 and rep. II. 212. Kai stands at the close of an 
entire exposition (before the final result) in Heb. iii. 19 (and according 
to some Codd. in 1 Cor. v. 13). 

e. When xaé signifies also (which is not the case e.g. in Eph. v. 2), it 
may be sometimes translated by precisely, just, very (eben, ja) (Hm. Vig. 
837 ; Poppo, Thue. III. If. 419): Heb. vii. 26 sowtros yap jyty Kat 
Expemev apxvepevs, davos etc. for such a high priest just became us, vi. 7; 
1 Pet. ii. 8 (Jno. viii. 25), Col. iii. 15; 2 Cor. iii.6; 2 Tim.i.12. Else- 
where it might be rendered by vicissim 1 Cor. i. 8; Phil.ii. 9; but also 
is quite sufficient. 

f. When xat occurs in the secondary clause after a particle of time 
(Gre, &s), as in Luke ii. 21 dre érAnoOynoay tpépar dxTrm Tod TepiTepety avror, 
kat exAnOn 7d Gvopa adtod Ingots, or vii. 12 os yyyioce TH TA THs Toews, 
Kat idod éexopilero teOvyxds, Acts i. 10; x. 17, the proper construction 
would be: érAno$. dé nugpar... Kal exAnOn, yywe TH TUAN ... Kal eLeKop. 
On the other hand, in Jno. i. 19 we must not (as even BCrus. does) join 
Ore dvréatetdav ... Kal dpodrdyyoe, but dre aréaretAav etc. is to be connected 
with avry éor 7» paprupia etc., see Liicke in loc. On kat commencing a 
parenthesis, e.g. Rom. i. 13 (Fr. in loc.), see § 62,1. On kat ydp see no. 8 
p. 448; and on kat d¢, no. 7 p. 443. In Luke xix. 42 and Acts ii. 18 we 
find kat ye et quidem, and that without a word intervening, a usage that 
does not occur in the earlier written language. As to later authors, see 
Klotz, Devar. II. 318. 


1 As to nat also after relatives (Heb. i. 2; 1 Cor. xi. 23, etc.), see Klotz, Devar. IL. 
636; but, in genera’, Ari. 319. The exact meaning of the also, even, must always be 
gathered from the context. Kai is repeated several times in succession by way of 
climax in 1 Cor. xv. 1 f. 


§ 53, CONJUNCTIONS. 439 


4, Connection in the form of correlation takes place, when two 
words or clauses are joined as corresponding to each other,! by 
means of cat... Kai (re... Te Acts xxvi. 16) or te... kai. The 
first formula (cai... «a/).is used when the writer from the very 
first conceives both members as co-ordinate, et ... et (both ... and, 
as well... as); the latter, when he appends to the first member a 
second (et... que, not only ... but also) Klotz, Devar. II. 740; 
Matt. x. 28 0 duvdpevos Kai Woyhy K. c@pa atroréoa, 1 Cor. x. 82 
amposKorrot Kal Lovdaios x.” EAnow Kal tH éxkdyola, Phil. iii. 10; 

iv. 3; Acts xxi. 12 wapexarodpev nets Te Kal of évtdriot, Luke ii. 16 
avevpov THv te Mapiap xal t. Iwond cal 76 Bpédos etc., Krii. 327. 

In the former case, the members are combined as into one whole 

(or compact group); in the latter, the second member is to be 
viewed as something added to the first, while the respective im- 
portance of each is not thereby pronounced upon (Rost 134, 5¢.); 

ef. Acts iv. 27; v.24; Rom.i.14; Heb. xi. 32 etc. In the course 

of lengthened enumerations, groups (pairs) are thus formed by 409 
Te... kat (... kad), as in Heb. xi. 32 Bapd« te kal Saprpov x. hhed 
‘TepOde, Aavid re x. Yapounr x. tov wpodntav, 1 Cor. i. 830; Heb. 
eee Acts ui. 9, 10: Phil: i. 7. 


Kai ... xa connect not merely things similar but also things contrasted, 
as in Jno. vi. 36 kal éwpdxaré pe cal od morevere the seeing and the not 
believing both occur, in xy. 24, probably also in xvii. 25. On the other 
hand, in 1 Cor. vii. 88 the co-ordination of the contraries is disturbed in 
the second member by a comparison. On the correspondence between 
te and dé, according to which the latter particle denotes, along with con- 
nection, some opposition (lenis oppositio Klotz, Devar. II. 741) as in Acts 390 
xxii. 28 and the chief captain answered ... but Paul said, xix. 3, see Stallb. ‘th ed. 
Plat. Phileb. p. 36, and rep. I. 350; Hm. Eur. Med. p. 362 sq.; Klotz 
le. Te and xaé are placed either immediately together between the two. 460 
words thus formed into a group, as in Luke xxi. 11 déByrtpe re at onpeta, 
Acts ix. 18, or are separated by one or two of the connected words, as in 
Luke xxiii. 12 6 re HudGr. cat 6 “Hpwdys, Jno. ii. 15; Acts ii. 43 roAda re 
tépaTa Kal onpucia, x. 39 & TE TH xwpa T. “lovdaiwy Kat “lepovoadrju, Rom. 
i. 20; Acts xxviii. 23 etc., in which case the article, preposition, or adjec- 
tive serves also for the second member. Otherwise in Phil. i. 7 & re rots 
decpmots pov kat év TH dmoAoyia etc. (In Acts xix. 27; xxi. 28 we find re 
ka‘ in one and the same clause, gue etiam, a combination rare in Greek 
authors, though not to be rejected.) 


1 Such passages as Mark ii. 26 cad %wxev Kal tors oly adt@ odo, Jno. v. 27, where 
kat... «al are not parallel to each other but the second signifies also, do not come 
under this head, cf. Soph. Philoct. 274. 


440 § 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 


5. Correlation is brought out with greatest precision in the form 
of comparison: ws (as7ep, KaOas) ... ovTws; frequently «ad is sub- 
joined to the latter to increase its force, as in Jas. il. 26 a@szep 
TO TOMA KOPLS TVEVMATOS VEKPOV EOTLY, OUTWS Kal ) ThaTIS Ywpls TOV 
épyov vexpa éotw, Jno. v.21; Rom. v.18, 21; 1 Cor. xv. 22; 2 Cor. 
i. 7; Eph. v. 24; Heb. v. 3; 2 Pet. ii.12. Sometimes, in fact, 
cat in the second member actually takes the place of the compara- 
ative particle, as in Matt. vi. 10 yevn@ntwa ro Oérnud cov ws ev 
ovpav® Kai emi yns, Jno. vi. 57; x. 15; xiii. 83; xvii. 18; Acts 
vii. 51; see Bornem. Luke 71. 


The popular style likes to introduce xai elsewhere into comparisons, 
though also is already implied in the comparative particle ; as, 1 Cor. vii. 7 
Gédw mavras avOpurovs elvar ds Kai éuavtov, Luke xi. 1; Acts vii. 51; xv. 8; 
xxvi. 29. Accordingly xai is repeated in both members in Rom. i. 13 
iva TWa KapTov oX® Kal ev duty Kabvs Kat év rots Aourots eOveow, Matt. 
xviii. 338 ; Col. iii. 13 ; Rom. xi. 80 (var.), Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 372 ; Klotz, 
Devar. Il. 635; Fr. Rom. I. 39; I. 538 sq. 


6. Disjunction comes next under consideration. Simple dis- | 
junction is effected by 7 (which is often repeated, especially in 
impassioned discourse, Rom. viii. 35) and by # «ad or even (Matt. 
vil. 10; Luke xviii. 11; Rom. ii. 15; xiv. 10; 1°Cor-xvieeee 
Fr. Rom. I. 122).! Correlative disjunction, on the other hand, is 
expressed by 7... %, elite ... ele, sive ... sive, whether single 

410 words or entire clauses are contrasted, Matt. vi. 24; 1 Cor. xiv. 6 
ithed. (yi7ou ... 4) Rom. vi. 16), Rom. xii. 6; 1 Cor. xii. 13; 1. Pet. 
iv. 15, ete. 7 


In the N. T. 4 is never put for kai, nor kai for 7, Marle, floril. 124, 195; 

AGI cf. Schaef. Demosth. IV. 33.2. There are cases, however, in which both 
391 particles, each agreeably to its import, may be used with equal correctness 
Gth ed. (Poppo, Thue. III. I. 146), e.g. 1 Cor. xiii. 1 and 2 Cor. xiii. 1 (cf. Matt. 
xviii. 16), also Heraclid. as quoted by Marle.2 When dissimilva are joined 
together by «af (Col. iii. 11), they are merely placed in connection as 
individual objects, and not exhibited expressly as different or opposite. 


1 According to the nature of the thoughts, the second clause, annexed by means of 
# xal, is either to be considered as supplementary (Bengel on Rom. 11. 15) and is of less 
importance than the first, or caf involves an enhancement as in 1 Cor. (Alotz, Devar. 
11.9592). 

2 As to aut for et, see Hand, Tursell. I. 540. On the other hand, disjunction by 4 
may in a manner include union by cai. When we say: Whoever murders father or 
mother is guilty.of the most heinous crime, we mean of course at the same time that 
whoever murders both his parents is not less guilty. ‘The minus includes the majus. 

8 On kai... kal vel... vel, see Schoem. Isae. p. 307. ,; 


§ 53, CONJUNCTIONS. 441 


In Matt. vii. 10 by xat eay a second case is introduced to which the speaker 
proceeds (further) ; but the better reading [supported too by Cod. Sin. ] 
is probably 7 kad. In Luke xii. 2 we must supply kai otdev xpurrov. In 
Matt. xii. 27 Schott has correctly rendered kai by porro. In a sentence 
constructed like Matt. xii. 837 or would be quite inappropriate; no less so 
in Rom. xiv. 7. It has been urged by Protestants, on controversial 
grounds, that 7 is used for xaé in 1 Cor. xi. 27 ds dv éo Oty tov aprov TodrTov 
) zy TO ToTHpLOV TOD Kupiov. But, not to mention that in this passage 
several good Codd. give Raf (as in vss. 26, 28, 29), 4 may be explained 
from the mode then current of partaking of the Lord’s Supper, without 
giving countenance to the Catholic dogma of the communion in one kind, 
see Bengel and Baumgart. in loc.'’ Should any one insist, however, that 
% proves areal distinction in the administration of the sacrament, even 
more would follow (looking at the matter philologically) than the Catholic 
interpreters could consent to take, viz. that the cwp alone might be suffi- 
cient in the communion. In Actsi. 7 (x. 14); xi. 8; xvii. 29; xxiv. 12; 
Rom. iv. 13; ix.11; Eph.v.3 7 is employed in negative clauses (Thue. 1,122; 
Aelian. anim. 16, 39; Sext. Empir. hypot. 1, 69; Fr. Rom. III. 191 sq.; 
Jacobs, Philostr. imag. p. 874 and Aelian. anim. p. 407), where in Latin 
also aut is used for et (Cic. Tuse. 5, 17; Catil. 1, 6,15; Tac. Annal. 3, 
d4 etce.; Hand, Turs. I. 534), and in ody tuay éoriv yvavat xpdvovus 7) Katpovs 
the negation applies equally to yvavat xpovous and yvdvat Karpovs (the atten- 
tion may be directed to the one or the other), so that the sense is exactly 
equivalent to yv. xpdv. Kat Kaipovs. When, lastly, xaé and 7 occur in par- 
allel passages (Matt. xxi. 23; Luke xx. 2), the relation was differently 411 
conceived by the different writers. It would be a manifest abuse of Tthed. 
parallelism to attempt to prove from this that the two particles are 
synonymous. Besides, these two particles have been not unfrequently 
interchanged by transcribers (Jno. viii. 14; Acts x.14; 1 Cor. xiii. 1 ete.; 462 
Maetzner, Antiph. p- 97). Cf also Fr. Mr. 275 sq.; Jacob, Lucian. Alex. 
p- 11; whereas Tholuck, Bergpred. S. 132 f., reaches no very clear result. 


T. Antithesis is expressed sometimes by the simple adversatives 
(dé, aA), sometimes by a concessive construction (pévTot, dues, 
ayra ye). A mutual relation of contrast, and consequently a 
combination of antithetical clauses, was originally indicated by 
pev ... 0€ (1 Pet. iii. 18; iv.6); but this relation was ultimately week- 
ened into mere correspondence (Rom. viii. 17; 1 Cor. i. 23), and 392 
became logically even inferior to parallelism by means of Kai... ihe 
cat (Hartung IT. 408 ff.). 


The particles éAAd and 6¢ differ in general like sed and autem (vero), see 


1 Even according to our mode of communing it is conceivable that one may receive 
the bread devoutly, but the cup with sensuous (perhaps sinful) distraction. Accord- 
ingly we, too, could say, Whoever receiveth bread or cup unworthily. 

56 


AL? 
Tih ed, 


463 


395 


6th ed, 


449, § 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 


Hand, Tursellin. I. 559, cf. 425: The former (the Neut. Plur. of dddos 
with a different accent, Klotz, Devar. II. 1 sq.), which may often be trans- 
lated by yet, nevertheless, imo, expresses proper and strict opposition 
(cancelling a previous statement or indicating that it is to be disregarded) ; 
the latter (weakened from 67 Klotz, 1. c. p. 355) connects while it con- 
trasts, ie. adds another particular different from what precedes (Schneider, 
Vorles. I. 220). When a negation precedes, we find otk... ddAd not... 
but, and also od (mn)... 0€ not... but (but rather), e.g. Acts xii. 9,145 
Heb. iv. 13; vi.12; Jas. v.12; Rom. iii. 4, odrd... 5é Heb. ii. 8 (Thue. 4, 
86; Xen. C. 4, 3,13; cf Hartung, Partik. I. 171; Klotz, Devar. II. 360). 
On adda and 6€ we remark specially that, 

a) adda is used when a train of thought is broken off or interrupted, 
whether by an objection (Rom. x. 19; 1 Cor. xv. 35; Jno. vii. 27; Klotz, 
Devar. IJ. 11; cf. Xen. Mem. 1, 2,9; 4,2,16; Cyr. 1, 6,9), or by a cor: 
rection (Mark xiv. 36; 2 Cor. xi. 1), or by a question (Heb. iii. 16; ef. 
Xen. C. 1, 8, 11; Klotz Il. 13), or by an encouragement, command, 
request (Acts x. 20; xxvi. 16; Matt. ix. 18; Mark ix. 22; Luke vii. 7; 
Jno. xii. 27; cf. Xen. C. 1, 5,13; 2, 2,4; 5, 5,:24; Arrian. Allo; 26fe8 
see Palairet p. 298; Krebs p. 208; Klotz, Devar. II. 5); for in all these 
instances something different is advanced subversive of what precedes. 
Cf. also Jno. vill. 26 and Liicke in loc. In a consequent clause (after 
conditional particles) dAAd, like the Latin at, gives it an adversative em- 
phasis, and so strengthens it: 1 Cor. iv. 15 éay pupiovs raidaywyods éxnre 
ev Xpiot@, GAN od woAXdo’s Tarépas (yet not, still), 2 Cor. iv. 16; xi. 65 
xiii. 4; Col. ii. 5 (cf. Her. 4, 120; Xen. C. 8, 6, 18; Lucian. pise. 243 
Aelian. anim. 11, 51; see Kypke II. 197; Niebuhr ind. ad Agath. p. 409; 
Klotz, Devar. II. 93). (The case is different in Rom. vi. 5 «i cvppuroe 
yeyovapey TO Gpouspare Tod Gavarov airod, AAG Kal THs dvactdcews eodpeOa. 
... surely we shall be also ete., see Fr. in loc.) The use of éAAa, when 
after a negative question it absorbs the answer no, as in Matt. xi. 8 ti 
eEnOare OcacacGar; KdAapov tro avé“ov cadevopevor ; avAXAG Ti een Oare 
idetv; and 1 Cor. vi. 6; x. 20; Jno. vii. 48 sq., requires no explanation 
(see Schweigh. Arrian. Epict. II. II. 839; Raphel. ad 1 Cor. as above). 
In Phil. iii. 8 GAAG prev oty signifies at sane quidem; adAa opposing the Pres. 
iyyodpat as a correction to the Perf. 7yypau.' In Rom.v. 14, 15 adda occurs 
twice in succession, in different relations; in 1 Cor. vi. 11 it is repeated 
several times, emphatically, in one and the same relation. 


1°AAN # after a direct or indirect negation, which occurs (occasionally in the Sept. 
e.g. Job vi. 5 and) three times in the N. T, (Luke xii. 51; 2 Cor. i.13 and 1 Cor. iii, 5,— 
but in the last passage is probably spurious), must according to the careful investigation 
of Klotz, Devar. p. 31 sqq., who followed Ariiger (de formulae aaa’ # et affinium par- 
ticular. post negation. vel negat. sententias usurpatar. natura et usu. Brunsvic. 1834. 
4to.), be referred to #AAo and not to addd. (In Luke as above J am not come on earth to 
bring — aught but division.) It is no valid objection to this exposition, that in 2 Cor., 
as above, Gadd itself precedes, cf. Plat. Phaed. 81 b.; see Klotz p. 36. 


§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS. - 443 


b) 5€ is frequently employed when merely something new is subjoined, 
something other and different from what precedes, though not strictly 
something contrasted (Herm. Vig. 845) ; this occurs in 2 Cor. vi. 15'sq. ; 
‘1 Cor. iv. 7; xv. 35 even in a succession of questions (Hartung I. 169; 
Klotz, Devar. II. 856). Hence, in the first three Gospels xaé and 6€ are 
sometimes found respectively in parallel passages ; in 2 Cor., however, as 
above, a clause commencing with 7 is inserted in a series of clauses con- 
taining dé! Like the German aber, dé is used in particular where an 
explanation is annexed, — whether as an integral part of a sentence, as in 
1 Cor.:ii. 6 codiav Aadrodpev ev Tots TEAElois, Copiay dé od TOV ai@vos TOUTOL, 
ii. 15; Rom. iii. 22; ix.30; Phil. ii. 8, or as a complete sentence in itself, 
asin Jno. vi. 10; ix. 14; xi. 5; xxi. 1; Gal. ii. 2; Eph. v. 32; Jas. i. 6 
——and where, after a parenthesis or digression, the train of thought is 
resumed (Hm. Vig. 846 sq.; Klotz Il. 876; Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 141 sq.) ; 
2 Cor. x. 2; ii. 12; v. 8; Eph. ii. 4; cf. Plat. Phaed. p. 80d.; Xen. An. 
7, 2,18; Paus. 3, 14,1 (autem Cic. off. 1, 438; Liv. 6,1, 10). In an 
explanation which is at the same time a correction, such as 1 Cor. i. 16, 
the advyersative force of the particle is still perceptible. Sometimes dé 
introduces a climax, as in Heb. xii. 6, or indicates successive steps in the 
discourse, as in 2 Pet. i. 5-7. As to d€ in the apodosis [ Acts xi. 17], see 
Weber, Demosth. p. 887, particularly after participles (supplying the place 
of the protasis) as in Col. i. 21 (Klotz II. 874), see Jacobs, Aelian. anim. 
J. 26 praef. Aé used several times in succession in didactic discourse must 
be interpreted according to the requirements of each particular case, as in 
} Pet. iii. 14 sqq. (the third d¢, however, is dropped by Lchm.) see Wies- 
inger. In narration often several clauses are connected together simply 
by d¢, as in Acts viii. 1-3, 7-9. 

kai... 0€ (in one and the same clause), as often in the best authors (Weber, 473 
Demosth. p. 220), is equivalent to et ... vero, atque etiam, and also (Kvii. Tth ed, 
319 “‘«ai means also; dé, and”; Hartung I. 187 f. maintains the reverse), 464 
Matt. xvi. 18; Heb.ix. 21; Jno. vi. 51; xv. 27; 1 Jno.i.8; Acts xxii. 29; 
2 Pet. i. 5; Schaef. Long. p. 849 sq.; Poppo, Thue. III. II. 154; Ellendt, 
Arrian. Al. J.137. The opposite phrase dé cai (2 Pet. ii. 1) means but also. 

As to pev (weakened from pv’), there is nothing peculiar in N. T. 
usage, for pev... dé... d€ in Jude 8 (not in 2 Cor. viii. 17) requires no 
explanation. Where, however, pév ... ddd correspond, as in Rom. xiv. 20 
ete. (cf. Iliad 1, 22 sqq.; Xen. C. 7, 1, 16), the second clause is made 
more strongly prominent, Klotz, Devar. 1.3. Further, when perv... xaé 
correspond, as in Acts xxvii. 21 f,, there exists an unmistakable anacol- 
uthon, Hm. Vig. 841; Maetzner, Antiph. 257. As to pév without 6€ 
following, see § 63, I. 2,e. p.575. Finally, on the unauthorized insertion 
of wév before 6¢ (Wahl, Clay. p. 807), see Fr. Rom. I. 423, cf. Rost 731. 


1JIn Greek authors, also, 5¢ occurs frequently, as is well known, in narration. 
2 This occurs in the N. T. only in the pure Greek combination h phy Heb. vi. 14 
(and even there not without var.), used to introduce an oath (Hartung, I. 376, 388). 


444 § 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 


Antithesis expressed by means of yet, however, is of very rare occurrence 
in the N.T. John uses peévroe most frequently where others would have 
employed a simple d¢. He once strengthens pévroe by prefixing dues 
(xii. 42). Elsewhere opuws is used but twice, — by Paul, 1 Cor. xiv. 7; 
Gal. iii. 15. We find xairovye in Acts xiv. 17, referring to something that 

394 precedes, and meaning although, quamquam [cf. also Jno. iv. 2]. In the 

bthed. N.'T. there is nothing peculiar in the use of é\Aa ye (Luke xxiv. 21; 
1 Cor. ix. 2 etc.) but yet, but certainly, Klotz, Devar. II. 24 sq., except 
that both particles are placed in immediate succession, which could scarcely 
occur in classic authors, Klotz, as above, p. 15. The correlation though 
... yet, is expressed by et kat... dAAG in Col. ii. 5 ef yap Kal ry capKi 
areyut, GAG TO Tvevpat. atv tyiv eiui, and by «i xai... ye in Luke 
xvili.4. In general, et kat means 7f also, sé etiam, quamquam (designat- 
ing something as matter of fact); but Kat ei even tf, etiam st (putting 
something merely as a case supposed), cf. Hm. Vig. 832; Klotz, Devar. 
II. 519 sq. 


8. The temporal relation of clauses is expressed by ws, dre (6Tav), 
evret, or by €ws, wéxpt, mply (§ 41 b. 8, p. 296 sq. and § 60). An 
inference is indicated by odv, toivuv, @ste (pevotdy), and more 
sharply by dpa, dv0 (@ev), Tovyapody, (ovKovv only in Jno. xviii. 37). 
The causal relation is denoted by 61, yap (81670, éet), while os, 
Ka0ws, KaSore (subjoining a clause) are rather explanatory than 
argumentative. Lastly, a condition is expressed by ec (ele, elzrep), 
édv, § 41 b. 2, p. 291 sq. 


a. The most usual and most strictly syllogistic of the illative particles 

is ovv, [ Val. Chr. Fr. Rost iib. Ableitung, Bedeutung u. Gebrauch der 
414 Partikel otv. Gott. 1859. 4to.]. Its reference can be discovered with more 
ithed. or less facility from the context in each instance, e.g. Matt. iii. 8, 10; 
465 xii. 12; 1 Cor. xiv. 11 (sée Mey. in loc.); Matt. xxvii. 22; Acts i. 21; 
Rom. vi. 4. But like the German nun (Eng. then, now), it is very often 
used to indicate the mere continuance of a narration (when what follows 
depends upon what precedes chronologically merely), Jno. iv. 5, 28; xiii. 6; 

cf. Schaef. Plutarch. [V. 425. Moreover, like the German also (therefore, 
thus) or nun (now), it is used especially after a digression to resume the 
train of thought (Heind. Plat. Lys. p. 52; Bornem. Xen. Mem. p. 285; 
Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 42; Dissen, Demosth. cor. p. 418; Poppo, Thue. 

III. IV. 738) 1 Cor. viii. 4; xi. 20, or when a writer proceeds to explain, 
(even by examples) as in Rom. xii. 20. "Apa accordingly, quae cum tta 

sint, rebus ita comparatis, serves, no doubt, primarily to introduce leviorem 
conclusionem, as it is used principally in conversation and the language of 
ordinary intercourse (Klotz, Devar. II. 167, 717); but in later Greek 

the use of this particle was extended, and individual writers, at least, 
employ it to indicate even a strictly logical inference. It inclines towards 


§ 538. CONJUNCTIONS. 445 


its primary import when used in the apodosis (after a conditional clause) 
(Matt. xii. 28; 2 Cor.v.15; Gal. iii. 29; Heb. xii. 8; cf. Xen. Cyr. 1, 3, 
2; 8, 4, 7) ; so also when it expresses an inference from some singular 
averment (cf. 1 Cor. v.10; xv. 15, where it may be rendered by indeed, 
that ts, Klotz 169 ; cf. Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 92; Hoogeveen, doctrina particul. 
I. 109 sq.) or proceeding (Luke xi. 48). In the N. T. Paul employs this 
particle most frequently, especially when analyzing the import of a quota- 
tion from the O.'T., Rom. x. 17; Gal. ili. 7 (cf. Heb. iv. 9), or summing 
up a discussion, Rom. viii. 1 (Gal. iv. 31 var.) ; though in these cases he 
as often uses otv. In questions dpa refers either to an assertion or fact 
previously mentioned, Matt. xix. 25; Luke viii. 25; xxii. 23; Acts xii. 18; 
2 Cor. i. 17, or to some thought existing in the mind of the questioner 
Matt. xviii. 1, and which suggests itself more or less distinctly to the 395 
reader. It then signifies, such being the case, under these circumstances, th . 
rebus ita comparatis, and sometimes, of course, obviously, Klotz II. 176. 
Likewise «i dpa si forte Mark xi. 13; Acts viii. 22 and éze doa 1 Cor. 
vii. 14 may be referred to this signification (Klotz, as above, 178). "Apa 
ofv combined, and that as the first words of a sentence (see, on the other 
hand, Hm. Vig. 823), so then, hine ergo (where dpa is illative and oty 
continuative, cf. Hoogeveen, doctr. part. I. 129 sq.; II. 1002), is a favorite 
expression of Paul’s, Rom. v. 18; vii. 3; viii. 12; ix. 16, etc. I know of 
no instances of this combination in Greek authors: in Plat. rep. 5, p. 
462 a. the recent texts read (in the question) dp’ ovv, cf. Schneider in loc.; 
Klotz, Devar. II. 180. Paul and Luke employ dw (8 6) most fre- 
quently. Totvey assuredly now, therefore, and rovyapotv (strengthened rovydp, 
Klotz Il. 738) wherefore then, are rare. As to dsre and its construction, 
see p. 301. 

b. “Ore refers in general to some matter of fact under consideration, and 

hence signifies both that and because, quod; in the latter case, it is some- 466 
times rendered still more forcible by a preceding 6:4 rotdro (propterea quod). 415 
Occasionally it is used elliptically, Luke xi. 18 ¢f Satan, also is divided ith od. 
against himself, how will his kingdom stand? (I ask this) because ye say, 
by Beelzebub etc. ; i. 25; Mark iii. 830 (Acta Apocr. p.57); Bornem. Lue. 
p: 6. Likewise in Jno. ii. 18, where it amounts to the same thing to trans- 
late it in consideration of the fact that (seeing that), Fr. Mt. p. 248 sq. 
But in Matt. v. 45 dre simply means because. (Sometimes it seems doubtful 
whether 67: means because or that ; the decision then rests on hermeneutical 
grounds.) The compound 6.7 (chiefly found in later Greek) for this 
reason that, or simply because, Fr. Rom. I. 57 sq. is used most frequently 
by Paul and Luke. 

Yép is in cultivated prose the most common causal particle, and corres- 
ponds to our for. Originally (it is contracted from ye and dpa, dp), it 
expresses in general a corroboration or assent (ye) in reference to what 
precedes (apa!) (see Hartung I. 457 ff.; Schneider, Vorles. I. 219; Klotz, 


396 
Gth ed, 


467 
416 


7th ed. 


446 § 58. CONJUNCTIONS. 


Devar. II. 232 f.1): sane igitur, certe igitur, sane pro rebus comparatis 
(cntm in its primary import), and from this fundamental signification arose 
its causal force. In consequence of its original signification yap serves — 
passing over what is familiar — first of all and very naturally 

a) to introduce explanatory clauses, whether they appear in the form 
of supplementary statements (sometimes of digressions) Mark v. 42; xvi. 43 
1 Cor. xvi. 5; Rom. vii. 1, or blend with the current of the discourse 2 Cor. 
iv.11; Rom. vii. 2; Jas. i. 24; ii.2; Heb. ix.2; Gal. ii.12. Top is then 
to be rendered by that zs, Klotz 234sq. Explanatory in a wide sense 
every confirmation or proof (even Heb. ii. 8) may be said to be which we 
introduce by for (though the German ja comes nearer than denn to the 
primary import of yép Hartung I. 463 ff): Matt. 11. 20 go into the land of 
Israel; for they are dead etc. This is especially the case in those passages 
where it was supposed that something is to be supplied before yap for,? 
Matt. ii. 2: where is the born king of the Jews? (he that is born king of 
the Jews?) for we have seen his star, xxii. 28; 1 Cor.iv.9; 2 Cor. xi. 33 
Phil. ii. 20; 1 Pet. iv.15; 2 Pet. ii. 5. Hence what Klotz says p. 240 
is in point: Nihil supplendum est ante enuntiationem eam, quae infertur 
per partic. yap, sed ut omnis constet oratio, postea demum aliquid tacita 
cogitatione adsumendum erit, sed nihil tamen alieni, verum id ipsum, quod 
ea sententia quae .praecedit yép particulae enuntiavit (for we have seen his 
star, —he must have been born, therefore, somewhere). Likewise, 

b) in replies and rejoinders (Klotz p. 240 sq.) the original import of 
yap is prominent ; for in Jno. ix. 80 év yap rovirw Gavmacrdv éorw ete. the 
reply refers primarily to the statement of the Pharisees in vs. 29 (dpa), 
and then subjoins an affirmation (ye): sane quidem mirum est etc. im 
this at least, it 1s assuredly wonderful. So also in 1 Cor. viii. 11; ix. 9,10; 
xiv. 9; 1 Thess. 11. 20, in all which cases nothing is to be supplied before 
yap.’ Equally unnecessary is it to supply anything in exhortations (Klotz 
242) Jas. i. 7: for let not that man think etc.; here apa refers back to 6 
yap Svaxpwopevos etc., and ye combines a corroboration with the inference. 
On the other hand, 


1 Si sequimur originem ipsam ac naturam particulae yap, hoc dicitur conjunctis istis 
particulis : Sane pro rebus comparatis, ac primum adfirmatur res pro potestate particulae 
ye, deinde refertur eadem ad antecedentia per vim particulae &pa. 

2 This practice of supplying something has been carried to an extent quite pedantic, 
e.g. Matt. iv. 18; xxvi. 11; Mark iv. 25; v. 42; 2 Cor. ix. 7. If it were maintained 
that between the propositions, ‘‘ He makes clothes, for he is a tailor,” we must supply, 
“ One need not wonder at this,” every body would regard it as ridiculous. As to the 
Latin nam, see Hand, Tursell. LV. 12 sqq. 

3 In Acts xvi. 37 Tabaos pn: Seipayres judas Snuoola dkatakpirous, avOpémous ‘Pwpatous 
imdpxovras €Badrov eis pudaxhy, Kal viv AdOpa juas exBdddrovow ; Paul immediately 
answers the question himself, 0d ydp, GAAd... avrol judas etayayérwoay : non sane 
pro rebuscomparatis. The &pa contained in ydép glances back at the circumstances pre- 
viously described ; while the ye founds upon them a corroboration: continet (as Klotz 
says p. 242) cum adfirmatione conclusionem, quae ex rebus ita comparatis facienda sit. 


§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 447 


c) in questions ydp seems to deviate farthest from its original import. 
And in fact the origin of this use may have been afterwards forgotten, 
and yap have been regarded as the sign of a question’ urgent because 
justified by the connection (Klotz 247). However, the essentially infer- 
ential force of yép (dpa!) is still perceptible in many passages: igitur 
rebus ita comparatis, adeo. In Matt. xxvii. 23 Pilate’s question 7¢ yap 
kaxov éroinoev; refers to the demand of the Jews cravpw6yrw in ys. 22. 
From this Pilate infers the opinion which he in the question imputes to 
the Jews: quid igitur (since you demand his crucifixion) putatis eum mali 
fecisse ? So in Jno. vii. 41 (surely you do not think then that the Messiah 
comes out of Galilee ? num igitur putatis, Messiam etc.?) The reference 
of this yép to something preceding is in all cases plain ;— even in Acts 
xix. 85; viii. 31. It is usual in this case also to supply something before 
the question, even though only a nescio or miror, Hm. Vig. 829 and ad 
Aristoph. nub. 192; Wahl, Clav. 79 sq. See in opposition, Klotz 234, 


"247. Lastly, Klotz 236, 238 appears to be right in contradicting the 397 


current assertion, that even in prose authors (such as Her. see Kiihner 6th ed 
II. 453) it is not unusual, in the lively movement of thought, to put yap 
with the causal clause before the clause it is intended to substantiate (see 
Matthiae, Eurip. Phoen. p. 371; Stallb. Plat. Phaed. p. 207; Rost, Gr. 
738 *); in reference to the N. T. (Fr. 2 diss. in 2 Cor. p. 18 sq. ; Tholuck 468 
on Jno. iv. 44 and Heb. ii. 8) this observation was in fact unnecessary. 
Meyer has, beyond doubt, correctly explained Jno. iv. 44. In Heb. ii. 8 
the words év yap 7@ troragar 7a wavra contain the proof of there being 
nothing which was not put in subjection to him according to God’s purpose, 417 
indirectly therefore of vs. 5 that the world to come also is put in subjection Th od 
to him; while viv dé ovzw etc. shows that this subjection has at least 
begun to be carried into effect. The Scriptural promise must be distin- 
guished from its actual fulfilment, which, however, has already commenced. 
2 Cor. ix. 1 stands in obvious connection with viii. 24. 1 Cor. iv. 4 oid 
éwavrov. dvaxpivw* ovdev yap eéuavtd cvvowda, GAN ovk ev TovTw SediKatwpat 
is to be translated: Jam conscious, to be sure, to myself of nothing, yet etc. 

d) yép occurs several times in succession with change of reference: 
Rom. ii. 11-14; iv. 13-15; v. 6,7; viii. 5f.; x. 2-5; xvi. 18f.; Jas.i. 6, 
7; 1. 10; iv. 14; 1 Cor. iii. 3-5; ix.16f.; Heb. vii. 12-14 (Lycurg. 24, 
1; 32,3) see Engelhardt, Plat. Apol. p. 225; Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. 
183 sq. In such passages ydp often gives the ground of a series of separate 
thoughts subordinate one to another (Jas. i. 6; 1 Cor. xi.8; Rom. viii.4 ff), 


1 The energy which resides in such questions with ydp proceeds from their being 
prompted by the very words of the other party, or by the circumstances ; a right being 
thus conferred to demand an answer, e.g. 1 Cor. xi. 22. 

2 Hm. Eurip. Iphig. Taur. p- 70: saepe in ratione reddenda invertunt Graeci ordinem 
sententiarum, caussam praemittentes : quo genere loquendi saepissime usus est Hero- 
dotus. Cf. also Hoogeveen I. 252. 


448 § 58. CONJUNCTIONS. 


see ’r. Rom. I]. 111. Sometimes, however, the same words are repeated 
with yap in order to introduce some addition to what has been said, Rom. 
xv. 27 (not 2 Cor. v. 4). 
Kai yép is equivalent either to etenim (merely connecting) or nam etiam 
giving prominence) Klotz, Devar. I. 642 sq. This latter signification 
has frequently been overlooked by expositors, even those of the N. T. 
(Weber, Demosth. p. 271; Fr. Rom. IL. p- 433). Thus in Jno. iv. 23; 
Acts xix. 40; Rom. xi.1; xv. 3; xvi. 2; 1 Cor. v. 7; 2 Cor. ii. 10, ete. ; 
in several of these passages even Wahl renders kat yép by etenim. Te ydp 
in tom. vii. 7 means for also, or for indeed, Hm. Soph. Trach. p. 176; 
Schaef. Dem. II. 579 and Plutarch. IV. 324; Klotz, Devar. II. 749 sqq. ; 
but in Heb. ii. 11 (Rom. i. 26) ze and xaé correspond, and in 2 Cor. x. 8 
there is probably an anacoluthon, Klotz lc. 749. 

"Ezeé passed from a particle of time into a causal particle, like our since 
and the Latin guando. “Ezedy answers entirely to quoniam (from quom— 
quum—jam). “Ezetrep since indeed (Hm. Vig. 786) occurs only in Rome 
iii. 80 (yet not without var.), see Fr. in loc. ['Ezeidymep forasmuch as, 
since now (Aristot. Phys. 8,5; Dion. Hal. 2, 72; Philo ad Caj. § 25 and 
used by the best Greek authors, see Hartung, Partikell. I. S. 342 sq.) 
occurs in the N. 'T. only in Luke i. 1.] 

Kaéds and os, in appended clauses, denote explanation rather than strict 
confirmation, and resemble the Latin (quoniam) quippe, siquidem, and 
the antiquated (Germ.) sintemal. On os (in 2 Tim.i. 3; Gal. vi. 10; 
Matt. vi. 12 it means as) cf. Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 836; Stallb. Plat. sympos. 
p- 185 ; Lehmann, Lucian. I. 457; III. 425 ete. 

398 As to é¢’ 6 on this account that, see p. 394. 

Othe, ¢, Ei has the compound forms elye since, gquandoquidem (when no doubt 

469 exists) and eizep ¢f indeed (when no decision is implied), Hm. Vig. p. 834; 
cf. Klotz, Devar. II. 308, 528, which occur almost exclusively in Paul. 
The distinction pointed out is obvious in most passages; as to Eph. iii. 2, 
see Mey. 1 Pet. ii. 3, and probably also 2 Thess. i. 6, appears to be of a 

418 rhetorical nature. On these-passages, as well as Rom. viii. 9; Col. i. 23, 

ith ed. see Fr. Priilimin. S. 67 f. Ei itself retains the signification 7f, even 
where in point of meaning it stands for éret since (Acts iv. 9; Rom. 
xi. 21; 1Jno.iv.11; 2 Pet. ii. 4, etc.) ; the sentence is in form conditional : 
if (as is actually the case), and the categoric force for the moment does 
not come into view. Sometimes there is a rhetorical reason for this usage 
(Dissen, Demosth. cor. p. 195; Bornem. Xen. conv. p. 101). So also in 
expressions in which it may be rendered by that, see § 60,6. Ei denoting 
a wish, ¢f only, O that, for which Greek authors usually employ «t@e or «i 
yép (Klotz, Devar. II. 516), occurs, according to the punctuation adopted | 
by recent editors, in Luke xii. 49 kai ri O€Aw; i dn avihOn and what do 
I wish? (answer) if tt were (only) already kindled ; see Mey. [in his 
earlier eds.] in loc. With regard to the Aorist, see Klotz le.: si de aliqua 


§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 449 


re sermo est, de qua, quum non facta sit olim, nunc nobis gratum fore 
significamus, si facta esset illo tempore. Such a question, however, seems 
rather artificial in the mouth of Jesus. Of the objections which Mey. 
brings against the common exposition, How I wish that it were already 
kindled! the second, so far as usage goes, is less forcible than the first. 
[But Mey. now (4th ed.) acknowledges the common interpretation to be 
correct. | 


9. Final clauses are expressed by means of the conjunctions iva, 
dts (ws). Objective clauses,! which as they express the object 
of the principal clause in the form of a perception or judgment 
merely unfold its predicate, and consequently assume the place of 
the Objective case in a simple sentence (Thiersch, gr. Grammat. S. 
605), I see that this is good, I say that he is rich, are introduced 
by 67¢ or as. Yet conjunctions are the less indispensable for both 
kinds of clauses as both may be conveniently expressed by means 
of the Infinitive, § 44. 


"Ort is the proper objective particle, like guod and that. It is used in 
this sense e.g. also after solemn asseverations, as in 2 Cor. xi. 10 éorw 
dAnGera Xpicrod ev euoi, Gal. i. 20 od evesriov Tod Geod, 2 Cor. i. 18 wards 
5 Oeds, Rom. xiv. 11, for these include the idea I aver, cf. Fr. Rom. II. 

242 sq. In this way, too, is 67s to be taken when it introduces direct 
discourse, Mdy. p. 222; cf. Weber, Demosth. p. 546. 

‘Os (Ady. from the pronoun ds Klotz, Devar. IJ. 757) likewise signifies, 
after verbs of knowing, saying etc., how, ut (Klotz p. 765) Acts x. 28 470 
éerioracde, ws dOeuirdv eat advdpi ‘Tovdaiw ye know, how (that) it 7s unlawful 
for a Jew. Thus the two conjunctions dr and és, when used in objective 399 
sentences, proceed from different conceptions of the object, but coincide Mth od 
in sense. 

"Orws, like uf (quo), besides being an adverb (how, zés Klotz, Devar. 

II. 681, cf. Luke xxiv. 20), has become a conjunction. “Iva was originally 419 
a relative adverb, where, whither (Klotz, as above, p. 616). From local Th ed, 
direction it was transferred to direction of the will (design), and thus 
resembles the Latin guo. In the N. T. és expressing design (Klotz p. 760) 
occurs only in the well-known phrase @s ézos eizetvy, Heb. vii. 9; cf. Mtth. 
1265, which, however, recent grammarians are inclined to explain other- 
wise, Klotz II. 765; Madv. 164. (How wa in the N.'T. is used also 
instead of the simple Inf., see p. 334 sqq.) 


10. The regular use of all these conjunctions, framed as they 
were to express the several relations of clauses, would be quite 
annulled, had the N. T. writers actually employed one conjunction 


1 Weller, tiber Subjects ... und Objectssitze etc. Meining. 1845. 4to. 
57 


450 § 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 


for another — if with them 6é often were equivalent to yap, yap to 
ovv, iva to waste, etc.:—as expositors, following indeed the scholiasts 
(Fischer ad Palaeph. p. 6) and earlier philologists, long assumed 
(Pott, Heinrichs, Flatt, Kiihnol, Schott, even D. Schulz), and as 
the Hermeneutics of.the time (Keil, Hermen. 8. 67) taught. 
471 But such interchange is in every instance only apparent. It 
rests in part on the circumstance, that the relation of two senten- 
ces to each other may be conceived sometimes in several ways 2; 
and thus the particular logical connection in a given passage may 
depend on the conception of the individual (or nation, see below 
on fva), one which is unfamiliar to the reader; and in part on a 
400 conciseness of expression foreign to the genius of our language. 
the Wherever the apostles use a é they have always thought somehow 
of a but; and it is the expositor’s duty to reproduce for himself in 
420 like manner the connection of thought, and not for convenience’ 
hed. sake to imagine an interchange of conjunctions perhaps of opposite 
import. For how absurd to suppose that the apostles actually used 
Jor when they intended to say but, or but when they should have 
written for! Any child can distinguish such relations. And how 
stupid they must have been to think of employing instead of for 
its opposite therefore! None but expositors who had never accus- 
tomed themselves to view language as living speech, or who shrank 
from the labor of precise thought, could have indulged such an 


1 Even the better expositors are not free from this arbitrariness: thus Beza in 1 Cor. 
viii. 7 takes aAAd for ttaque. Sce in opposition to such interpretation my Progr. Con- 
junctionum in N. T. accuratius explicandar. caussae et exempla. Erlang. 1826. 4to. 
It is really strange to see how the commentaries (till within a few decades) undertake 
again and again to dictate to the apostles, and force upon them almost always some 
other conjunction than that actually employed in the text. Were we to reckon up 
the passages, there would certainly remain e.g. in Paul’s epistles not more than six or 
eight in which the apostle has selected the right particle, and not required the subsequent 
aid of an expositor. This has made the interpretation of the N. T. very arbitrary. 
Are we not to believe that Paul and Luke knew more Greek than many of their 
domineering expositors ? No one in this matter can appeal to the Hebrew who has 
not a most irrational idea of that language. Such arbitrary substitutions of one thing 
for another are impossible in any human speech. Besides, the arbitrariness of the 
interpreters was the more manifest, because different expositors often attributed to a 
conjunction senses entirely different in the same passage: (in 2 Cor. viii. 7 e.g dAAd 
according to some is put for yap; according to others, for ody etc. ; in Heb. v. 11 rat 
according to some is put for adAd, but according to others means licet. In Heb. iii. 10 
Kiihnol leaves it optional whether 6€ is taken for caf or in the sense of nam). Thus 
purely private opinion has here the freest range. Moreover, the translators of the books 
of the N. T. (even the excellent Schulz in the Epistle to the Hebrews) deserve censure 
for rendering the conjunctions most capriciously. 

2 Cf., as to such a case, Klotz II. p. 5, and the remarks made below (after explaining 
oby), p. 455 sq. 


§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 451 


imagination; and it is no honor to biblical exegesis that such 
principles so long found approval. In human thought connected 
ideas are always related ideas. Whenever, therefore, a conjunc- 
tion is used in a sense apparently foreign to it, the very first en- 
deavor must be to show the process by which the writer’s mind 
passed from the primary to the unusual signification. But this 
was not thought of; had serious thought been given to it, the 
delusion of which we have been speaking would have vanished in 
a moment. 

As the unlimited interchange of conjunctions is a pure fiction, 
so too is the notion that they are weakened ; according to which 
even the more forcible particles, as for, but, are represented as 
being quite superfluous or mere particles of transition (see e.g. 
no. 3 below). Recent exegetes, indeed, have abandoned this 
arbitrary but convenient rule of interpretation. We will there- 
fore single out only a few especially specious passages, in which 
the conjunctions employed were for a long time not acquiesced 
in, or where even the better expositors are not agreed about the 
connection of thought. 


1. *AdAa does not stand 

a) for ovv: In 2 Cor. viii. 7 GAAd simply means but, at: from Titus, 
to whom he had given instructions, Paul turns to exhort his readers on 
their part to do what was desired ; for the clause with iva is to be taken 
imperatively. Eph. v. 24 is not an inference from vs. 23; but. the state- 
ment in vs. 22, that wives should be subject to their husbands os 70 
kvpiw, is proved in vss. 23, 24 first from the position of Christ and of the 
husband, both being xepaAat, but secondly —and this is the main argument 
— from the claim (to be obeyed) which, as for Christ so for the husband, 
flows from this position. And vs. 24, so far from being a mere repetition 
of what is stated in vs. 22, concludes the argument, and explains troraco. 
Tos avop. &s T@ Kupiw. ‘The expressive apposition also, airds cwrnp ete., 
does not interrupt the train of thought; whereas the exposition of Mey., 
who regards these words as an independent sentence, introduces a state- 
ment that obstructs the line of argument. As to Acts x. 20 (Elsner in 
loc.), see above, no. 7. p. 442. 


47 


b) for «i py: In Mark ix. 8 otkére oddéva etdov, dAAQ Tov "Inooty povov 421 
means, they no longer saw any one (of those that they had previously ith ed. 
seen, vs. 4), but (they saw) Jesus alone. In Matt. xx. 23 (Raphel and 401 


Alberti in loc.) d00ycera, borrowed from dotva, is to be repeated after 
adXAd, and the conjunction signifies but. 

c) for sane, profecto: neither in Jno. viii. 26 see no. 7 p.442, nor in xvi. 2, 
where it denotes 7mo or at as in Acts xix. 2; 1 Cor. vi. 6. Rom. vi. 5, 
where aAAd (kat) occurs in the apodosis, does not come under this head. 


Oth ed. 


473 


452 § 58. CONJUNCTIONS. 


2. Aé never means 

a) therefore, then: In 1 Cor. xi. 28 it signifies but, in antithesis to vs. 27 
dvatins écOlev, but let a man examine himself (in order to avoid bringing 
on himself such guilt). In 1 Cor. viii. 9 a practical restriction, in the form 
of an admonition, is annexed to the general principle laid down in vs. 8: 
but see to it that this liberty do not become etc. In Rom. viii. 8, if Paul 
had intended to present Oew dpéoar od dSvvavrat as an inference from what 
precedes he might have continued with therefore (as Riick. explains 6€) ; 
but he passes from éy6pa eis Oedv to the other aspect of the matter @e@ 
dpécas ov dvvavtat, — a transition which would have surprised no one had 
there been no parenthetical clause., In Jas. ii. 15 6é, if genuine, means 
jam vero, atgut. 

b) for (Poppo, Thue. II. 291; Ind. ad Xen. Cyr., and Bornem. ind. ad 
Xen. Anab. ; see, on the other hand, Hm. Vig. 846; Schaef. Demosth. 
II. 128 sq.; V. 541; Lehm. Lucian. I. 197; Wex, Antig. I. 300 sq.) 2? 
In Mark xvi. 8 efye 6€ is merely explanatory ; the cause of this tpdpos Kat 
exoracrs is stated in the words éfoPovtvto yap ; some good Codd., however, 
which Lchm. follows, [Sin. also] have ydp in the first passage. In Jno. 
vi. 10 the words jv 6¢ xdpros etc. are also a supplementary explanation ; 
see above. In 1 Thess. ii. 16 ef@ace dé forms a contrast to the intention 
of the Jews dvarAnp. airav rt. duapt.: but (as, in fact, they would have it 
so) the punishment for this is come on them. In Matt. xxiii. 5 wAativovar 
d€ etc. are special illustrations of wdavta 7a epya airy ovotor pods 70 
Gcabjvar; the yap, adopted by the more recent editors, probably owes its 
origin to scribes who were troubled by dé In 1 Tim. iii. 5 ef d€ tts ete. 
means, but if one etc.; the sentence, as will be seen by referring to vs. 6, 
is a parenthetical antithesis to rod idtov otxov zpotorapevov. In 1 Cor. iv. 7 
who distinguisheth thee (declares thee pre-eminent) ? but what hast thou, 
that thou didst not receive ? i.e. but if thou appealest to the pre-eminence 
which thou possessest, I ask thee, hast thou not received it? In 1 Cor. 

i. 7 (Flatt, Schott) 8€ signifies potivs. In 1 Cor. x. 11 éypady dé, as 
even the leading position of the verb indicates, forms an antithesis to the 
statement that precedes: all these things happened etc. ; but they were 
written etc. In 1 Cor. xv. 13 é€ is a genuine adversative: if Christ is 


429 risen, then the resurrection of the dead is a reality ; but if the resurrection 


Tth ed. 


of the dead is not a reality, then (by converse reasoning) neither is Christ 
risen. Verse 14 contains a further inference: dut if Christ is not risen, 


402 then etc. The one statement of necessity establishes or invalidates the 


6th ed. 


other. In 2 Pet. i. 13 d6€ forms the antithesis to the words Kaimep €ldoras 
etc. .On Phil. iv. 18 see Mey. 


1 In the sense of namely, that is, both conjunctions coincide: by means of 5é a new 
clause is annexed which is part of the statement ; while by means of ydp a clause is 
presented as a confirmatory illustration of what precedes. The latter mode of expres- 
sion is often in substance equivalent to the former, see Hm. Vig. p. 845. 


§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 453 


c) Nor does it ever serve as a mere copula or particle of transition : 
Matt. xxi. 3 (Schott) say, the Lord hath need of them; and straightway 
he will send them, i.e. these words will not be without effect; but, on the 
contrary, he will straightway etc. In Acts xxiv. 17 the narration proceeds 
by means of dé to another event. In 1 Cor. xiv. 1 dé means but: but the 
Suo0Kew THY aydrynv must not prevent you from fyAotv 7a rv. On 2 Cor. 
li. 12 Meyer’s opinion is more correct than de Wette’s; Paul refers to 
vs. 4. In 1 Cor. xi. 2 it would be a mistake to regard, as Riick. does, dé 
as indicating merely the advance to a new topic (Luther has not translated 
it at all, while Schott renders it by guidem) ; the words connect themselves 
(directly) with the exhortation immediately preceding, puyntai pov yiverbe: AT4 
yet (while I thus urge you, I do not mean to blame you) J praise you ete. 
Likewise in Rom. iv. 3 Luther and many other translators have neglected 
dé (at the beginning of a quotation where the Sept. has xa/); but Paul is 
probably as little chargeable as James (ii. 23) with having used the adver- 
sative particle wantonly or without meaning. It renders éziorevoe more 
forcible, not tq say almost antithetic. 

3. Tdp is incorrectly taken 

a) for the adversative but (Markland, Eur. suppl. vs.8; Elmsley, Eur. 
Med. 121; see, on the other hand, Hm. Vig. 846; Bremi in the n. krit. 
_ Journ. TX. 533): In 2 Cor. xii. 20 [say all that for your edification ; for 
L fear etc. (this is the very reason that I say it). In Rom. iv. 13 the 
clause with ydp confirms the last words of the preceding verse, év dxpoBvoria 
miatews Tov watpds etc. In Rom. y. 6f. the first yép simply refers to 
the fact which attested the love of God (vs. 5), — Christ’s dying for the 
ungodly ; the second ydp explains, a contrario, how death (of the innocent) 
for the guilty evinces transcendent love; the third ydp substantiates the 
remark pois izép dixafov ete. 1 Cor. v. 3 means: and ye, have ye not 
felt yourselves compelled to exclude the man? for I (for my part), absent 
in body, ... have already decided etc. It was, therefore, surely to be 
expected that ye, who have him before your eyes, would have applied the 
(milder) punishment of exclusion. Pott understands ydp here in the sense 
of alias! As to 1 Cor. iv.9 see above, p.446a). 2 Cor. xii. 6 is: of myself 
L[ will not boast ; for if I should desire to boast, I shall not be a fool (there- 
fore, I might do so). In Phil. ili. 20 qpav ydp ete. stands in closest rela- 
tion to ot ta éxlyea pov. they that mind earthly things! (a summary of 
vs. 19), for our conversation is in heaven (on this very account I warn 
you against them, vs. 18f.). In Rom. viii. 6 the clause with yap states 
the reason why ot xara mveipa (vs. 4) ta Tod rv. dpovodow, which is, that 
the Ppovnya tis capkds leads to death, but the dpdv. rod zv. to life; vs. 5, 423 
however, is confirmatory of vs. 4. In Col. ii. 1 Bengel had already in- Tth ed. 
dicated the correct interpretation. Heb. vii. 12 (Kiihnél: autem) appends 
the reason for vs. 11: for change in the priestly succession and abolition 
of the law necessarily go together, see Bleek in loc. 2 Pet. iii. 5 explains 


454 § 58. CONJUNCTIONS. 


(Pott) how such men can come forward with such frivolous assertions as 
403 in vss. 3,4. Heb. xii. 3 enforces the preceding resolution tpéywpev ete. » by 
bth ed. reference to the example of Christ. 

b) for therefore, then: Bengel’s remark throws light on Luke xii. 58: 
yap saepe ponitur, ubi propositionem excipit tractatio. 1 Cor. xi. 26 
elucidates the expression «is tyv eunv dvépvynow vs. 25. In Rom. ii. 28 

475 the connection is this: the uncircumcised, who lives agreeably to the law, 
may convict thee, who, though circumcised, transgressest the law; for it 
is not what is external (like circumcision) that constitutes the real Jew. 

On Heb. ii. 8 see above, p. 447. 

c) for although: as in Jno. iv. 44 (see Kiihnél) ; but ydp is simply for ; 
matpis can only mean Galilee, vs. 43. 

d) for on the contrary: 2 Pet. i. 9 (Augusti). Aé might have been | 
used, if the apostle had intended to say: but he, on the contrary, who lacks 
these (virtues) etc. With ydp, the sentence confirms (illustrates) the 
foregoing ot« dpyobs ... Xpiorod éxlyvwow a contrario (47H): for he that 
lacks these, is blind. ‘This interpretation supplies, too, a more forcible 
reason for the exhortation in vs. 10. 

e) for GAN’ épws nevertheless: 2 Cor. xii. 1 (where indeed the reading 
is extremely uncertain; yet the common reading 67 is not so decidedly 
incorrect as Mey. insists) to boast (xi. 22 ff.) 7s not expedient for me surely ; 
for Iwill (I will, that ts to say, Klotz, Devar. Il. 235) now come to visions 
and revelations of the Lord. Paul in this passage contrasts (cf. vs. 5) 
boasting of himself (of his own merits) with boasting of the divine marks 
of distinction accorded him. Of these last he will boast, vs.5. Accordingly, 
the meaning is: yet glorying in self 1s not expedient ; for now will I come 
to a subject for glorying that excludes all self-glorification and renders tt 
superfluous. 

f) for the mere copula: In Rom. iii. 2 tp@rov pev yap commences the 
proof of the statement zoAb xara ravra tporov. Acts ix. 11 inquire in the 
house of Judas for Saul of Tarsus ; for, behold, he prayeth (thou wilt 
therefore find him there), and he hath seen a vision (which has prepared 
him to receive thee), cf. Bengel in loc. In Acts xvii. 28 70d yap yevos 
etc. is a verse quoted verbatim from Aratus, where, moreover, yap may be 
taken as confirmatory of év airé Gowev Kat Kwovpeba Kat éouev. In Acts 
iv. 12 the clause otdé yap dvouda éotw etc. serves to unfold, and thus. to 
establish, the statement év dAAw ovdevi 7 owrnpia; and what the second 
clause adds to the first the attentive reader will easily perceive. In Acts 
xiii. 27 we may, with Bengel, Meyer, and others, restore the connection 
thus: to you, ye (foreign) Jews etc. ts this word of salvation addressed ; 
for those at Jerusalem have despised this Saviour. It is more probable, 

424 however, that Paul intended to proceed thus: for he is proved to be the 
ith ed. Messiah foretold to our fathers, cf. vss. 29, 32 ff. The recital of the facts 
in which the prophecies were fulfilled, impairs, however, the formal com- 


§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 455 


pactness of the reasoning. At all events ydép is not a mere particle of 
transition, as Kiihnél asserts. In 2 Cor. iii. 9 it appears to me that the’ 
words «i yap 7 duck. etc. go so far towards establishing the apostle’s thought 

as duaxovia rhs Sukavooivns expresses something more definite than diaxovia 476 
Tov rvevparos: tf the ministration of death was glorious, ... how shall not 

the ministration of the Spirit be much more glorious? Fr.’s exposition, 

in his diss. Corinth. I. p. 18 sq., seems to me artificial, In Matt. i. 18 404 
(Schott), after the words rod "Inood Xp. } yéveots obras Fv, the details Mth ed 
commence as is not unusual with ydép namely. 

4. Or is falsely taken 

a) for but: Acts ii. 30 (KXiihnél) zpod. otv timdpy. is simply an inference 
from the sentence that precedes: David died and was buried. He there- 

fore, in his character of prophet, referred to Christ’s resurrection in the 
words which he used apparently in reference to himself. Acts xxvi. 22 
is not antithetic to vs. 21; but Paul, reviewing his apostolic life up to this 
imprisonment, concludes: by the help of God, therefore, I continue until 
this day, etc. Even Kiihnél, in his Comment. p. 805, accurately renders 
otv by igitur ; but in the index oty is represented as here denoting sed, 
tamen! In Matt. xxvii. 22 ri otv toujow “Inootv is: what then shall I do 
with Jesus (since you have decided in favor of Barabbas) ? 

b) for for. In Matt. x. 32 as ody dstis is not confirmatory of the clause 
tok\A@v otpovlinv Suapépere tyets, but resumes and continues the main 
thought vs. 27 xypvgare etc. kai pi poPetobe. Fr. is of a different opinion. 
In the parallel passage, Luke xii. 8 A€yw dé iptv: was Os av duoroyjnon 
etc., the d€ is substantially the same in sense but more expressive. In 
1 Cor. iii. 5 ris obv éoriv ... "AmoAXds; who, then (to follow out your party- 
strifes), 7s ... Apollos? In 1 Cor. vii. 26 ovy introduces the yvoun which 
the apostle proposes in vs. 25 to give. 

c) ‘for a mere copula, or as wholly superfluous: Rom. xy. 17 (Kollner) 
becomes at once plain by a reference to vss. 15, 16 (dia rHv yapw etc). 
The otv in Matt. v. 23 is entirely overlooked even by Schott; but it 
unquestionably introduces, however, a practical inference (admonition) 
from vs. 22 (the punishableness of anger etc.). It is more difficult to 
determine the connection in Matt. vil. 12, and even the more recent ex- 
positors differ widely from each other. Tholuck’s exposition is probably 
correct, though his review of the various interpretations is far from com- 
plete. In Jno. viii. 38 kat ipets odv & HKovoate Tapa Tod TaTpos TrovetTe the 
ovv is far from being redundant; it contrasts with sad irony the conduct 
of the Jews (you also, therefore) with the conduct of Jesus, representing 
both as following the same principle. 


Of the preceding four conjunctions dé and ovy are the most closely 
allied ; and hence there are passages where either might have been em- 
ployed with equal propriety (e.g. Matt. xviii. 31), though even in the 
- mere continuation of discourse (in narration) they are not strictly equiy- 


ATT 
425 


Tth ed. 


405 
6th ed. 


478 


456 § 53, CONJUNCTIONS. 


alent. Instead of: Jesus found two fishermen, who... And (but) he said 
to them etc., I can also say: Jesus found... So (then) he said to them. 
The change does not greatly affect the sense, but still there is a difference 
of conception between the two. In the first case, to the coming and finding 
them the speaking is annexed as something new and different ; in the last, 
the thought is this: he sazd then (availing himself of the opportunity) to 
them. If in such an instance the narrator employs dé, it cannot be asserted 
that he ought to have used otv; or vice versa. Idp and 6¢, also, can 
sometimes be used with equal propriety (see 10, 2,b) p. 452): In Jno. 
vi. 10 the evangelist wrote: Jesus said, make the people recline; now (but) 
there was much grass in the place. He might also have written: for 
there was much grass, etc. In the latter case he represents the cireum- 
stance as the incidental cause of the direction; in the former, it is given 
as merely explanatory ; see Klotz II. 862; cf. Hm. Vig. 845sq. Here 
also then there is a difference of conception in the two cases. Consequently 
we may not adduce parallel passages, such as Luke xiii. 35, cf. Matt. 
xxiii. 39, as proof of the perfect equality of d€ and yép. Even, however, 
if in such cases d€ and ody, d€ and ydp, are pretty nearly equivalent, it does 
not follow that they are interchangeable in all, even their more precise, 
significations. On the other hand, yap and éAdd are particles of far too 
definitive a nature to admit of their being used for each other at will, or 
even being unimportant. Finally, even in the most ancient Codd. (and 
versions ') numerous variations are found, in respect to the conjunctions 
dé and ydép Matt. xxiii.5; Mark v. 42; xii. 2; xiv.2; Luke x. 42; xii. 30; 
xx. 40; Jno. ix. 11; xi. 30, etc.; Rom. iv. 15 (Fr. Rom. II. 476), dé and 
ow Luke x. 37; xiii. 18; xv. 28; Jno. vi. 3; ix. 26; x. 20 some 
xix. 16; Acts xxviii. 9 etc., otv and yap Acts xxv. 11; Rom. iii. 28. 


5. “Ore is not equivalent 

a) to 86 wherefore (as the Hebrew “5, but likewise erroneously, is 
sometimes rendered; see my Simonis under the word, yet see Passow 
under 67c) : In Luke vii. 47 nothing but a blind hostility to the Catholics 
(see Grotius and Caloy. in loc.) could misinterpret ori, see Mey. in loc. 
As to 2 Cor. xi. 10 see above, no. 9 p. 449. 

Nor is this particle used for da 7/ in direct question (Palairet, observ. 
125; Alberti, observ. 151; Krebs, observ. 50; Griesbach, commentar. 
crit. IT. 188 ; Schweigh. lexic. Herod. II. 161 [Bttm. Gramm. des N. T. 


1 These latter, therefore, where conjunctions are concerned, ought not to be cited in 
a critical apparatus as authorities without great caution. Yet in general, nothing has 
been treated so negligently by the earlier critics as the ancient versions; even the 
better known and most accessible are, ten to one, brought forward incorrectly, — when, 
that is to say, either from the nature of the language or the principles on which they 
were executed they can be made to furnish no evidence respecting a various reading. 
But it is to be regretted that even in the most recent editions this part of the critical 
apparatus still appears unsifted. 


§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS. A57 


Sprachgebr. S. 218]) in Mark ix.11; even de Wette so understands it, and 

in support of his opinion refers to the passages which Krebs adduces from 
Josephus, not considering that there 6 zu (6,7, as Lehm. printed it) is 
used as a pronoun in an indirect question, —a usage that assuredly does 

not require proofs from Josephus (Kypke I. 178). But as to this passage, 426 
see above, p. 167. Fr. was disposed on very slight authority to read ri Tth ed, 
ovv (from Matt.), which is undoubtedly a correction. In Mark ix. 28 the 
best Codd. (even the Alex. [but not Sin.]) give dua ré, as in Matt. xvii.'19. 

In Mark ii. 16 Cod. D at least gives the same [likewise Cod. Sin. ], yet 

. Lachm. reads ri 674. But or, though admitted as the true reading, would 

not necessarily be an interrogative. As to Jno, vill. 20 (Liicke), see 

§ 54, 1 p. 464. 

b) to quanquam: Kihnél renders Luke xi. 48 though they killed 
them, yet ye etc. Beza had already given the right exposition of the 
passage. In Matt. xi. 25 Kiihnol has himself, in the fourth edition, given 
up this interpretation; and in his third edition also explains correctly 
Jno. villi. 45. 

c) to ore. As tol Jno. iii. 14, see BCrus. In 1 Cor. iii. 13 (Pott) 
ort obviously specifies why % tuépa dyAdoe etc. Everybody is aware that 
déru and Ore have often been interchanged by the transcribers (cf. Jno. xii. 41 ; 

1 Cor. xii. 2; 1 Pet. iii. 20, etc.) ; see Schaef. Greg. Cor. p. 491; Schneider, 
Plat. rep. 1.393; Siebelis, ind. Pausan. p. 259. Accordingly in the Sept. 
wherever dru appears to have the meaning of when or as, we must un- 406 
hesitatingly read dre (even in 1 Kings viii. 37), as the recent editions give Ml ed 
on good manuscript authority in all the passages quoted by Pott on 1 Cor. 

as above. 

d) to profecto: In Matt. xxvi. 74 dru is recitative; on the other hand, 
in 2 Cor. xi. 10 it means that (as after solemn oaths), see above, no. 9 
p- 449. In Rom. xiv. 11 (from Isa. xlv. 23) the sense is: I swear by my 
life, that etc. 

Lastly, for a refutation of the assertion that dru is equivalent to ds, 
as according to some is the case in Matt. v. 45, see Fr. in loc. Vs. 45 
declares that by dyazdav rots €xOpovs etc. they will become children of their 
Father in heaven, and proves this from that Father’s treatment of the 
Tovnpol. 

6. “Iva to the end that, in order that (sometimes preceded by a prepara- 
tory «is rotro, Jno. xviii. 837; Acts ix. 21; Rom. xiv. 9, etc.), is said to be 479 
frequently employed in the N. T. éxBarixds to denote the actual consequence 
(Glass. ed. Dathe I. 539 sqq.), as it has sometimes been taken in Greek 
authors also, see Hoogeveen, doctr. particul. I. 524 sq., the annotations on 
Lucian. Nigr. 80; Weiske, Xen. Anab. 7, 3, 28; cf. also Ewald, Apocal. 

p: 233. Now even if this were possible as a general principle, inasmuch 

as the Latin wt denotes both design and result (though the gradual weak- 

ening of ‘va in later Greek see § 44, 8 is no proof of it), yet no one will 
58 


427 
7th ed. 


407 
bth ed. 


480 


458 § 538. CONJUNCTIONS. 


deny that expositors have made most immoderate use of this principle and 
are chargeable with great exaggeration.’ The alleged use, wholly unknown 
e.g. to Devar., was denied by Lehmann, Lucian. Tom. I. 71, and afterwards 
by Fr. Matt. exc. 1, and by Beyer in the n. krit. Journ. IV. 418 ff. ; 
yet cf. also Liicke, Comment. on Jo. II. 371 f.; Mey.on Matt.i.22. Beyer’s 
view was combated by Steudel in Bengel’s n. Archiv IV. 504f.; and 
Tittmann, Synon. II. 85 sqq., has also declared himself in favor of wa 
exBatixov.” Others, as Olshausen, bibl. Comment. II. 250 and Bleek, Heb. 
II. I. 283, are for admitting the ecbatic sense at least in single passages ; 
[ Bttm., too, (Gramm. des N. T. Sprachgebr. S. 206) asserts that there 
are passages of the N. T. where wa has more of the ecbatic sense than of 
the final, and where we shall come nearer the author’s thought if we 
translate it by so that (i.e. osre with Inf.).] In the first place, most ex- 
positors have hitherto overlooked the fact that their judgment of the use 
of iva is often to be shaped in accordance with Hebrew teleology, which 
interchanges historic results with divine designs and decrees, or rather 
represents every (important, and especially every surprising) event as 
ordered and designed by God (cf. e.g. Exod. xi. 9; Isa. vi. 10, Knobel 
in loc.; cf. Rom. xi. 11; see BCrus. bibl. Theol. S. 272; Tholuck, Ausleg. 
d. Br. a. d. Rim. 3 Aufl. S. 395 ff.),? and that on this account tva may 
oftentimes be used in the biblical dialect where we, agreeably to our 
conception of the divine government of the world, should have employed 
wste. Other passages have not been examined attentively enough; else 
it would have become evident that even according to the ordinary modes 
of thought iva is employed there correctly. In still other passages it has 
escaped observation that sometimes the expression to, in order to, is em- 
ployed for rhetorical reasons, by a sort of hyperbole (e.g. so then I must 
go there in order to get sick! cf. Isa. xxxvi. 12; Ps. li. 6; Liv. 3, 10; 
Plin. Paneg. 6,4; I have, then, built a house in order to see it burn 
down !) ; or lastly, that wa merely expresses (what in the regular course 


1 Tf indeed with Kiihnél (Hebr. p. 204) we lay it down as a principle that tva denotes 
consilium only saepius, we shall easily make up our minds to take the conjunction 
exBaTikas. 

2 He thinks that even in Attic poets he has found instances of the kind. But 
Aristoph, nub. 58 Seip’ 2A@ wa KAdys is obviously not one; and Aristoph. vesp. 313 
receives its explanation in the remark soon to be made above. Likewise in Mr, Anton. 
7,25 tva is undoubtedly ready. How unceremoniously Tittmann disposes of the N. T. 
in order to make out his theory is apparent from his treatment (p. 45) of Jno. i. 7, 
where in fact no unprejudiced expositor will take the second iva as éxBatixéy. Even 
Kiihnél has not done so. 

3 To assert that the Israelites wn?formly confounded design and result (Unger de 
parabol. p. 173), would be saying too much. This took place only in their religious 
views of events (in devout speech, BCrus. Jo. I. 198). When these did not influence 
them the sharp distinction between in order that and so that must certainly have made 
itself felt by the Israelites. Their having in their language a special expression for so 
that shows that they had a correct notion of the distinction. 


§ 53, CONJUNCTIONS. 459 


of nature and life is) the necessary result, one which is therefore so to 
speak unconsciously intended by the person that does some given act (cf. 
Liicke, Jo. I. 603; Fr. Rom. viii. 17), see below on Jno. ix. 2. 

Passing over those examples which will be readily understood by the. 
attentive reader (as 1 Pet. i. 7, where Pott from mere habit as it were 
takes iva for wste), we select the following, in which iva is supposed even 
by good expositors to be used de eventu: 

In Luke ix. 45 (the divine) purpose is indicated by iva (cf. Matt. xi. 25): 
that they might not at that time perceive it (otherwise, they would have 
been perplexed with regard to Jesus). In Luke xiv. 10 iva corresponds 
to parore vs. 8, and very clearly expresses design (not without reference 
to the application of the parable): be humble, 7x order that thou mayest 
be deemed worthy of his heavenly kingdom; the resw/t is indicated wholly 
in tore era etc. As to Mark iy. 12 (Schott) see Fr. and Olsh. and below, 428 
p- 461. Cf. also Luke xi. 50; Matt. xxiii. 34f. In Jno. iv. 36 the sense ith ed. 
is: this is so ordered én order that etc. In Jno. vii. 23 (Steudel) the words 
iva wn Avon 6 vofios Mwiicéws express the design underlying the custom 
tepitopny AapBaver avOpwros év caBBarw. Jno. ix. 2 is to be explained by 
the Jewish theory of final causes, which in its national exaggeration the 
disciples shared. Severe, inexplicable, bodily afflictions must be divinely 
ordained penalties for sin: who then by his sin has moved the penal justice 
of God to cause this man to be born blind? ‘The necessary consequence 
(though undesignedly induced) of dyaprave is meant, see Liicke in loc. 

In Jno. xi. 15 iva musrevonre is added to dv ipas by way of explanation : 
I rejoice on your account (that I was not there), to the end that ye may 
believe, i.e. now ye cannot but believe. In Jno. xix. 28 iva means tn order 
that, whether with Luther we join tva red. 7) ypady to mavta 75n TeréX. (SO 
Mey.), or with Liicke and de Wette to the following Aéyer; in the latter case 
iva denotes a purpose attributed by John to Jesus. As to Jno. xvi. 24 see 
Liicke. In Rom. xi.31 wa does not indicate the design of the dzewGotvres, 
but God’s decree which linked itself to this unbelief cf. vs. 382, to bring 
them salvation (not as merited, but) out of mercy. In connection with 
the divine plan, then, unbelief is designed etc., cf. also vs. 11. In the 408 
same way is v. 20f. to.be explained, and probably also 2 Cor. i. 9. The tl ed. 
same ; teleological view clearly finds place in Jno. xii. 40 in a quotation 
from the O.T. Rom. ix. 11 only requires attention to be plain; and it is 
fairly surprising that Reiche should still take iva as ecbatic. The meaning 481 
of 2 Cor. y. 4 is obvious; and it passes comprehension how even Schott 
could render iva by ita ut. In 1 Cor. v.5 eis dAeOpov THs GapKds shows 
how an intention of promoting the good of the rvedpa is connected with 
the apostolic wapadodva: 76 arava; beyond contradiction, therefore, iva 
denotes in order that. In 1 Cor. vii. 29 the words ta kat ot €xovres ete. 
indicate the (divine) purpose of 6 Katpds cvvertaApévos etc. The same 
applies to Eph. ii. 9. In Eph. iii. 10 iva yrwpic6y etc. is probably de- 


429 
Ith ed, 


482 


409 


6th ed. 


460 § 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 


pendent grammatically on rod droxexpuppévov in vs. 9, see Mey. In Eph. 
iv. 14 wa etc. expresses the negative design of what had been stated in 
vss. 11-13. 

As to Gal. v.17 (Usteri, BCrus.) see Mey. 1 Cor. xiv. 18 6 Aadov 
yAwoon mposevyécGw, tva dueppnve’n means: let him pray (not in order to 
make a display of his yépuspa tov yAwoodv, but) with the intention, for 
the purpose, of interpreting (the prayer). 1 Jno. iii. 1 behold, how great 
love the Father has shown us (with the intention) that we should be called 
children of God; see Liicke; BCrus. is not decided. In Rev. viii. 12 va 
expresses the object contemplated in the zAjrrecfar of the sun ete. ; for 
mAyjtt. does not denote, as many suppose, the actual darkening of the 
heavenly bodies, but is the O. T, 527 used in reference to the wrath of 
God, see Ewald in loc. In Rev. ix. 20 the intention of peravociy is ex- 
pressed in iva wy: they did not amend, 72 order no longer to serve demons 
etc. The discernment of the fact that the objects of their worship were 
mere demons and wooden idols, should have led them to peravora, in order 
to emancipate themselves from so degrading a worship.” In 1 Thess. y. 4 
(Schott, BCrus.) tva denotes design on the part of God, see Liinemann. 
Under the telic sense comes also John’s expression éAjAvbev 7 wpa va Jno. 
xii. 23: the hour is (by God’s decree) come (consequently is present 7 
order) that I etc., cf. xiii. 1; xvi. 2,32. Inaccurate expositors took wa 
in these passages as in 1 Cor. iv. 8; vil. 29 for ore or drav. 2 Cor. vii. 9 
(Riick., Schott) ye were brought into sorrow, in order that (God’s purpose) 
ye might be spared a more severe chastisement. Ye did not rather mourn, 
in order that... might be expelled? Here, it is true, dste might also be 
used if atpecOar were regarded as the natural result of wevOjoa. Paul, 
however, conceives of it as the end: ye should have mourned with this 
end in view, to expel him. In 2 Cor. xiii. 7 the double tva indicates the 
aim of Paul’s prayer: first negatively, then positively. The correct ex- 
position of Rom. iii. 19 is probably now to be regarded as settled; see 
also Philippi. Only BCrus. still hesitates. As to Rom. viii. 17 see p. 499. 
In 2 Cor. i. 17, however, iva preserves its meaning, whether we explain 
the passage: what I resolve, do I resolve according to the flesh, that (with 
the intent that) the yea with me may be (unalterably) yea, and the nay nay 
(i.e. merely to show my own consistency) ? or thus: im order that with 
me there should be (found) yea yea, and nay nay (that both should be 
found with me at the same time, that I should afterwards deny what I had 
affirmed). In 2 Cor. iv. 7 wa 7 taepBodn etc. refers to God’s purpose in 
the fact that eyouev tov Oncavpoy totrov év édaTpakivots oKxevecow. In 
Heb. xi. 35 the words tva xpeirrovos dvactacews tvywow indicate the 
purpose with which those persons refused the drodvrpwots. On Heb. 
xii. 27 see Bleek and de Wette. In Rev. xiv. 13 (Schott) probably 
aroOvycKkover (from dro6vjcKovres) is to be repeated before iva évaratvowvrat. 


Ewald and de Wette are of a different opinion, cf. above, § 48, 5, p. 317. 


§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 461 


That the expression tva (d7ws) Trnpwhh rd pyOe in Matt. or 4 ypady, 
6 Acyos in John, which was for some time reduced to a mere ?ta ut, has 
in the mouth (of Jewish teachers and so) of Jesus and the apostles (when 
used in reference to an event which has already occurred) the more precise 
- sense of in order that it might be fulfilled, cannot be doubted ; cf. also Olsh. 
and Mey. on Matt.i.22. But it certainly was not meant by this that God 
had caused an event to occur, or ¢mpelled men inevitably to act in a certain 
manner, for the very purpose of fulfilling the prophecies (Tittm. Synon. 
Il. 44) ; the expression is very far from implying any sort of fatalism, 
Liicke Jo. IJ. 536.1. With this expression, moreover, is Mark iv. 12 also 


to be classified : all things are done to them in parables, in order that they 430 
may see and yet not perceive etc., for: in order that the declaration (in Th ed 


Isa. vi. 8) may be fulfilled: they will see and yet not etc. We too are 
accustomed to interweave such quotations with our discourse, when they 
may be presumed to be well known. Jesus cannot intend to assert the 
general impossibility of understanding such parables (for then it would 
have been strange indeed to speak in parables at all) ; but means that to 
persons who do not comprehend parables so very plain might be applied 
the saying of the prophet: he sees and understands not; and that there 
would be such men had been expressly predicted. 

In the defective diction of the Apocalypse iva is apparently used once, 
xiii. 13, for asze or ws, after an adjective including the notion of intensity: 
magna miracula, i.e. tam magna, ut etc. This would be as admissible at 
least as orc after an intensive, cf. Ducas p. 34, 28, p. 182; Theophan. cont. 
p- 663; Cedren. Il. 47; Canan. p. 465; Theod. H. E. 2, 6, p. 847 ed. 
Hal., and my Erlang. Pfingstprogr. 1830, p. 11. Yet see p. 338. It is 
otherwise in 1 Jno. i. 9 (a passage misconstrued even by de Wette and 
Schott): he is faithful and just, in order to forgive us (with a view to 
forgive, that he may forgive); cf. in German: er ist scharfsinnig, um 
einzusehen. ‘This expressed thus: er dst scharfsinnig, so dass er einsieht, 
conveys in substance the same meaning, yet exhibits the thought under 

an aspect somewhat different. Here belong also the passages quoted by 
* Tittmann (Synon. II. 39) from Mr. Anton. 11, 3; Justin. M. p. 504. 
Bengel’s remark on Rey. as above: wva frequens Joanni particula; in 


483 


omnibus suis libris non nisi semel, cap. 3, 16 ev., dste posuit etc. is indeed 410 
correct, yet is not to be understood as if John used iva indiscriminately for Mth ed. 


dste. The reason why dsre so seldom occurs in John is partly owing to 
the doctrinal turn of his writings, and partly to the fact that he expresses 
result by other constructions. 


1 Bengel, on Matt. i. 22, says, in the doctrinal phraseology of his time yet in the main 
correctly, ubicunque haec locutio occurrit, gravitatem eyvangelistarum tueri debemus et, 
quamvis hebeti visu nostro, credere ab illis notari eventum non modo talem, qui 
formulae cuipiam veteri respondeat, sed plane talem, qui propter veritatem divinam non 
potuerit non subsequi ineunte N. T. 


431 
ith ed, 


484 


411 
6th ed, 


462 § 54, ADVERBS. 


Some insist that iva is used for 67: in Mark ix. 12 yéypamrae éxt roy vidv 
tod avOpdrov, tva toAAa TaOy Kal eEovdevwHy. But the words probably 
mean, tin order that he suffer; this must be understood as an answer to 
the question, and épxerau or éXevoerat supplied before it. Nobody will be 
misled by the passage which Palairet (obs. 127) has quoted from Soph. 
Aj. 885 ovy dpas, W & Kaxod; where iva. is an adverb. (Some take dws 
for drt, os in Xen. C. 3, 38,20; 8, 7, 20, see Poppo in loc.) 

Many render also dzws in order that erroneously by ta ut (Kiihndl, Act. 
129; Tittm. Synon. II. 55, 58). In Luke ii. 85 (BCrus.?) it is hardly 
necessary to refer to the Hebrew teleology to discover the meaning of the 
conjunction. Acts iil. 19 is plain if dws dmooreiAkn tov Xp. vs. 20 be 
understood of the opening of the kingdom of heaven, as vs. 21 requires. 
What was remarked in reference to iva p. 457 sq. elucidates Matt. xxiii. 35. 
Philem. 6 is connected with vs. 4: J make mention of thee in my prayers, in 
order that etc. Meyer’s objections to this reference are groundless. In 
Heb. ii. 9 (Kiihnél) the clause with ozws receives so much light from 
vs. 10 that scarcely any expositor is now likely to render the dzws by tta 
ut. On drws tAnpwhy see above, p. 461. 

‘Os as a particle of comparison always means in the N. T. as, not so 
(for ovrws), as in 1 Pet. i. 6 Pott might have learnt even from Bengel. 
Nowhere also in the N. T. is there a reason for writing it és—a form, 
moreover, very rare (Heind. and Stallb. Plat. Protag. c. 15) in prose 
writers (with the exception of the Ionic). In Heb. iii. 11; iv. 3 (Sept.) 
as may be rendered by that, so that ; in which sense it is sometimes used 
with the Indicative even in good Greek authors (Her. 1, 163; 2, 135). 
On Mark xiii. 34 and similar passages, see Fr.; to assume there with Mey. 
an anacoluthon is quite unnecessary. 


§54, ADVERBS. 


1. Adverbs are so indispensable in defining closely relations of 
quality, that we can easily understand. how it is that the N. T. wri- 
ters, though inferior to the Greek prose authors as respects the 
use of conjunctions, have yet mastered pretty well the resources 
of the Greek tongue in adverbs, considered extensively ; it is only 
when it is viewed intensively, i.e. as respects the finer shades of 
thought conveyed by several of the simple adverbs (e.g. av) and by 
adverbial compounds, that their usage betrays them to be foreigners 
who did not feel the need of such refinements. 

Derivative (adjectival) adverbs are the more numerous in the 
N.T., because the later Greek had derived from many adjectives 
adverbial forms previously unknown, and had adopted into ordi- 
nary prose other words of the class which had hitherto been used 


§54, ADVERBS. | 463 


only in poetry. Of. dkalpws (Sir. xxxii. 4), avaFiws (2 Macc. 
xiv. 42), dvopws (2 Mace. viii. 17), amorowws (since Polyb.), 
éxtevas (likewise; Lob. Phryn. 311), amepiordctws (likewise ; 
Lob. 415), éro/uws (for which the Attic language at least used 
€& éroipov), evOvpws (since Polyb.), éoyatws (cf. Lob. 389), ev- 
apéorws (Arrian. pict. 1, 12, 21), cevds (Arrian. Epict. 2, 17, 6 
(eis xevov), Tposhutas, TEeAElws, TOAUTPOTMS and TOALPLEPAS, PNTHS, 
é@vixas in the biblical sense. 

Among the remaining adverbs also some belong to later prose, 
and give offence to the grammarians; e.g. t7repéxewa see Thom. 
M. 336, ovpavdbev, madi0ev, waxpoev Lob. 93 sq. 

The use of the adjective (or partic.) Neut.! for the correspond- 
ing adverb, which became more and more common in later Greek, 
does not exceed in the N.T. the limits observed in the earlier 
prose: cf. mpatov, Uatepov, mpotepov and To mpoTepov, wAHaLoD, 
TUYOV, EXaTTOV, TOA, TO VoV éyov Acts xxiv. 25 for the present (Vig. 
p. 9, cf. Hm. p. 888), todvavtiov, Nowrov and To Nowrrov (Hm. Vig. 
706), Tay, TuKva, loa, waxpa, TOANE (often, cpodpa) and Ta Tora 
(for the most part), for most of which no adverbial forms existed. 

In general, there is nothing peculiar in the N. T. diction in re- 
gard to the use of adjectives, with or without prepositions (ellip- 
tically or not), for adverbs: ef. e.g. Tod Aowrod (Hm. as above; 
van Marle, florileg. p. 232 sq.), wef, wdavtn, Katapovas, KaT olay, 
idta, Kaforov, eis Kevoy, and the Lexicons under the words. In- 
stead of kata éxovovov Philem. 14 (Num. xy. 3) éxovaiws, éxovoia 
or €& éxovoias is more common in Greek. It is not necessary to 
speak of genuine Greek compounds, such as tapaypyywa; on the 
other hand, in conformity with the genius of the Hebrew-Aramaic 
tongue, abstract substantives with prepositions, instead of adverbial 
forms actually existing, are more frequent than in Greek authors: 
e.g. ev arneia Matt. xxii. 16, em adnbetas Luke xxii. 59 (for 
— adnas), év Stxacoovvyn Acts xvii. 81 for duxaiws, see above, § 51. 
In 2 Cor. iv. 16 nyépa kat pépa, as a circumlocution for the 
adverb daily (xa® sjpépav or To Kal’ jwépav, common in the N.T.), 
would be without example in the N. T. cf. pis pis, see Vorst, Hebr. 
307 sq.; Ewald, kr. Gr. 638.2, Probably, however, Paul designedly 
used the expression day by day, to indicate the progress of avaxat- 
vovaOat; whereas Ka@ (éxdarnv) Huépav avaxawodtar might be 
taken also in another sense. Further, we find an analogous con- 


1 However, what Zm. Eurip. Hel. p. 30 sq. says in elucidation of this use of neuters, 
deserves consideration. 


2 Cf. nuéoa 7 nuéoa Georr. Phrantz. 4, 4, n. 356. 


432 
Tth ed. 


485 


AGA | § 54. ADVERBS. 


struction (though only in a local sense) in Mark vi. 89 éwérakev 
avaknival TavTas cuuTocla cuptToacta catervatim, cf. Exod. 
viii. 14, vs. 40 dvérecov tpactai mpaciai areolatim, see § 87, 3. 
These words are strictly in apposition, cf. Luke ix. 14. What 
Georgi in his Vindic. p. 840 has collected is of another sort. 


412 When a simple accusative of a noun (substantive) is used adverbially, 
bth ed. this use arises strictly from an abbreviated construction (Hm. Vig. 883). 
Besides the well-known xapu, under this head come 
a. THY apxXyV throughout, altogether (Vig. 723), which is probably so to 
be taken also in Jno. vill. 25 (see Liicke’s careful examination of the 
passage) : altogether what L also say unto you (1 am entirely what in my 
discourses I profess to be). The context furnishes no ground whatever 
for preferring the interrogative to the categoric interpretation ; Meyer’s 
exposition is complicated, and appears to me least satisfactory of all. 
b. dxunv used in later Greek for ér, as in Matt. xv. 163 see Lob. 
Phryn. 123 sq. 
Adverbs may be joined not only to verbs, but also to nouns, as in 1 Cor. 
433 xii. 381 Ka trepBodry 6d0v tyiv decxvyps, see no. 2, and 1 Cor. vii. 85 mpds 


\ t. | , “~ , 3 / 
7th ed. ro evTapedpov TW KUPLO ATEPLOTATTWS. 


2. The adverbial notion is sometimes expressed concretely as 
adjectival, and subjoined to the substantive (Mtth. 1001; Kihner 
486 II. 882). This takes place not only when it is to the substantive 
(not to the verb) that a predicate (logically) belongs (though in 
German an adverb is used),! but also where such reference to the 
substantive appears to be more favorable to perspicuity:2 Acts 
xiv. 10 advacrnO. emi rods mrodas cov opOos, Mark iv. 28 avtoparty 
yh Kaptodopet, Acts xii. 10 (Iliad. 5, 749), Rom. x. 19 wpa@tos 
Moions réyet Cas the first), 1 Tim. ii. 18; Jno. xx. 4 etc. ;? Luke 


1 So Jno. iv. 18 todro, dAnOts eYpneas this hast thou spoken as (something) true, hoc 
verum dixisti. On the other hand, 7. dAn0as e¥p. (which Kiihndl demands) would be 
ambiguous. Cf. Xen. vectig. 1, 2 8rws 5 yvwoOH, Bre GAnOES TovTO Aéyw, Demosth. 
Halon. 34b. rotré ye dandés A€yovow. 

2 Cf. especially Bremi, Exc. 2, ad Lys. 449 sq. , Mehlhorn, de adjectivor. pro adverbio 
positor. ratione et usu. Glogay. 1828. See also Vechner, Hellenol. 215 sqq.; Zumpt, 
lat. Gramm. §§ 682, 686; Avritz, Sall. I. 125; II. 131, 216. In Latin this form of 
expression is in general still more prevalent. zchhorn (Hinleit. ins N.'T. II. 261) 
makes an erroneous application of the rule in supposing that Jno. xiii. 34 évtoAhy 
Kawhy dlSwur can signify, anew (kawes) will I give you the commandment. But in that 
case John must at least have written (tatrnyv) thy evtoAhy kavhy ddwu. Even the 
position of the words precludes taking udvov adverbially in Jno. v. 44; see Liicke. 

8 Ordinal adjectives are used for adverbs only when first, second, etc. refer to the 
person; that is, when something is expressed which the person did before all other 
persons (was the first to do); but when the person is represented as doing a /irst act, 
in distinction from other subsequent acts of the same person, the adverb must be used. 
Cf. also Aritz, Sallust. IL. 174. 


§ 54, ADVERBS. | 465 


xxl. 34 pnrote éeriotn ef bywas aidvidsos H hepa exeivyn (var. 
aidyidiws), Acts xxvill.13 devtep ator iOopev eis ILorioXovs, 1 Cor. 
ix.17 ef yap €x@v TovTO Tpdcow... ci dE dKov etc. Cf. also Luke 
v. 21; 1 Cor. ix. 6, etc. With these adjectives the construction 
described is frequent, not to say predominant, in Greek authors 
(cf. in regard to avrowaros Her. 2, 66; Lucian. necyom. 1; Xen. 
Magowi,o; 4,3,8; Oyr.1,4,18; Hell.5,1,14; Dion. H.1,139; 
Weitst. I. 569, in regard to 7p@ros Xen. An. 2, 3,19; Cyr.1,4, 2; 
Paus. 6, 4, 2; Charit. 2, 2, as to devrep. Her. 6,106; Xen. Cyr. 
5, 2,2; Arrian. Al. 5, 22,4; Wetst. II. 654, as to aipvidios Thue. 
6,49; 8, 28, subitws irrupit Tac. hist. 8, 47); yet with other 413 
adjectives not uncommon: Xen. Cyr. 5, 8,55 airs rapedadvep 
Tov immov ... Wavyos KateGeadro etc. 6, 1, 45 ed 018, 67 Ao pevos 
av mpos avopa... atadXaynoetat (Demosth. Zenoth. 576b.; 2 Mace. 
x. 383; Pflugk, Eurip. Hel. p. 48; see, on the other hand, Acts 
xxi. 17), 7, 5, 49 e¢ tadtTa mpoOvpos cor cvdAdaBouw (var.), 4, 
2,11 €PerXovctoe e&tovtes, Dio Chr. 40, 495 ruKvoi Badifortes, 
Isocr. ep. 8 reXeuTar (at last, finally) trecxopnr, cf. Palair. 214; 
Valcken. Her. 8, 130; Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 156; Kru. 210f 

How far it is correct to say that adjectives are used instead of adverbs 434 
is obvious from the preceding observations. 'To suppose, also, that adverbs ith ed. 
are used instead of adjectives is a mistake (Ast,! Plat. polit. p. 271), as 487 
in Matt. i. 18 1 yeveots ovrws jv, xix. 10 ed ottws éotlv 7 aitia Tod dvOpwrov 
(LXX. Rom. iv. 18) 1 Pet. ii. 15; 1 Thess. ii. 10 as dctws k. duxaiws Kal 
Gpeprrus vpty eyevnOnuev, vs. 13; Rom. ix. 20 ti pe éxoinoas ovtws ; In 
the first of these passages «ivas is not the simple copula (as in avry or 
TowovTd ear), but denotes to be of a certain condition or character, stand, 
comparatum esse.?, In Rom. ix. 20 ovrws denotes the manner of zotety, 
the consequence of which is his being now the person that he is. Cf. 
Bremi, Aesch. Ctesiph. p. 278; Bhdy. S. 837 f.; Hm. Soph. Antig. 633 ; 
Wex, Antig. I. 206; Mehlhorn in the allg. Lit.-Zeit. 1833. Ergzbl. no. 108; 
Lob. Paralip. p. 151; as to Lat. Kritz, Sallust. Cat. p. 306sq. Likewise 
in 1 Cor. vii. 7 éxacros iSvov exer xéprpa, 8s pev odTws, bs Sé ovrws the 
adverbs are in place: each has his own (peculiar) gift, one after this 
manner, another after that. 

A closer approximation to adjectives is found 

a. In certain local adverbs, such as éyybs elvat, xwpis twos evar Eph. 
li. 12, woppw etvar Luke xiv. 32 (Krii. 244). 


1 His article in the Landshuter Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. und Kunst III. I. 133 ff. 
I have not had an opportunity of comparing. 

2 In Jno. vi. 55 there is a variant. Recent editors have preferred aAnOqs, see Liicke ; 
who, however, ably combats at the same time the opinion that aAn@as and dAnOjs are 


synonymous. 
59 


466 § 54, ADVERBS. 


b. In adverbs of degree annexed to substantives (av being understood) ; 
as, pada orparnyos Xen. Hell. 6, 2, 39, see Bhdy. 838. Usually they are 
placed before the noun, but sometimes after it. Even ancient expositors 
thus understood 1 Cor. xii. 31 Kal éru ka@ trepBornyv 6dov tply detxvume: 
a super-eminent (more excellent) way. Such an adverbial adjunct is placed 
after the noun in 1 Cor. viil. 7 77 cuvedyjoet Ews apte Tod eidwAov, Phil. i. 265 
2 Pet. ii. 22, probably also in 2 Cor. xi. 23; see Mey. 


3. The adverbial notion of entensity is not unfrequently ex- 


‘pressed by joining to a verb a participle of the same verb (see § 45, 


8), or a cognate noun in the Dative (Ablative): Luke xxii. 15 
evrOupia ereOvunoa I have earnestly desired, Jno. ili. 29 yapa xaipet 
inpense laetatur, Acts iv. 17 amend arernoopeba let us straitly 
threaten, V. 28 mrapayyedia tapnyyetdapev bpmiv, xxiii. 14 avabeuare 


414 aveOepaticapyev we have bound ourselves under a great curse, Jas. 


bth ed. 


488 


435 
Tth ed. 


v. 17, from Sept. Matt. xiii. 14 (Isa. vi. 9); Matt. xv. 4 Qavar@ 
Tekevtatw (Hxod. xxi.15). This form of expression is of frequent 
occurrence in the Sept. and the Apocr., and is there an imitation 
of the Hebrew Infinitive absolute, cf. Isa. xxx.19; lxvi.10; Deut. 
vil. 26; Exod. xxi. 20; Josh. xxiv. 10; 1 Sam. xii. 25; xiv. 395 
Sir. xlviii. 11; Judith vi. 4 (Vorst, Hebr. p. 624 sq.); yet it is 
sometimes found in Greek authors also (Schaef. Soph. II. 313; 
Ast, Plat. Epin. 586; Lob. Paralip. 524) e.g. Plat. symp. 195 b. 
dhevyov huyh 70 yapas,! Phaedr. 265 d. éwot paliverar Ta pev adda 
Taroed weTaic Oat, Phot. cod. 80,113 cmovdj orovdagew, Soph. 
Oed. R. 65 trve eddovta, Aecl. 8, 15 vikn evixnoe. 


Of a different nature are those passages in which the Dative of the noun . 


is accompanied by an adjective (or any other adjunct) ; as, rats peytoraus 
rysats eripnoar, Cnp.ottw rH voplopéevy Cypia (Schwarz as above). These 
coincide with the modé of expression explained in § 32, 2; cf. Xen. A. 4, 
5, 33; Plut. Coriol. 3; Aristoph. Plut. 592; Aeschyl. Prom. 392 = Home 
hymn. in Mere. 572. From the N.T. see 1 Pet. i. 8 dyadAaobe xapa 
dvexAadyrw ete. Even the expression yayw yeyapyxes in Demosth. 
Boeot. 639 a. has no connection with the construction in question; it 
means, as it were, having espoused by marriage i.e. living in lawful wedlock, 
as yapetoba alone is applied also to concubinage. Even Xen. An. 4, 6, 25 
ot weATacTal Spopw €Geov I would except, as dpd0s denotes a particular 
sort of rapid advance: at a run, on the trot. As to Soph. Oed. C. 1625 
(1621), see Hm. in loc. 


1 [ob., as above, shows that in Greek authors this form of expression is used only 
in a figurative sense, not in a physical, as in Jer. (xxvi.) xlvi.5. Moreover, in Latin 
the well-known occidione occidere is analogous to this construction. 


Be iy 





§ 54, ADVERBS. AGT 


4. Certain adverbial notions the Greeks were accustomed to 
regard as verbal; accordingly, the verb whitch was to have been 
qualified by one of these notions, they made, in the form of an 
Infinitive or Participle, to depend on it as principal verb (Mtth. 
1279 ff.; cf. Kritz, Sallust. 1, 89): Heb. xiii. 2 éXa@ov tues Eevi- 
cavtes they (escaped — their own — notice as entertaining) enter- 
tained unconsciously, unawares (Wetst. in loc.; ef. also Joseph. 
bell. jud. 3,7, 3; Tob. xii. 13),! Acts xii. 16 éwréweve xpovwr he 
knocked persistently (Jno. vill. 7) cf. Losner, obs. 203; Mark 
xiv. 8 mpoédAaBe pupica antevertit ungere, she anointed before- | 
hand (Kypke in loc.; @@dvm also is sometimes used with the Inf. 
see Wyttenbach, Juliani orat. p.181; cf. rapere occupat Horat. Od. 

2, 12, 28), Matt. vi. 5 dirodce mposevyerOax they love to pray (cf. 
Ael. 14, 37 Gir Ta aydApata... opav) Wetst. and Fr. in loc., 
Luke xxiii. 12, see Bornem. Whether @é\m also (€6é\o? Hm. 489 
Soph. Philoct. p. 238) is used as a finite verb to denote the adver- 
bial notion gladly, with pleasure, cheerfully (sponte), has lately 
been questioned, (that the Partic. of @é\@ is so used is well known, 
ef. Mey. on Col. ii. 18).2_ And in fact Jno. vill. 44 ras émiBuplas 415 
‘Tod matpos tuov OérXeTeE Trovety must be rendered: the lusts of bthel. 
your father ye will (are resolved and inclined to) do (carry into 436 
effect), either in general (your hearts impel you to follow the will of i 
Satan) or because ye go about to kill me (vs.40). The Plural here, 
which troubles de Wette, has already been explained by Liicke. 
In Jno. vi. 21, also, the interpretation given by Kiihnol and others 
is necessary only in case an attempt (for which there is no author- 
ity) is made to harmonize the narrative of this evangelist with 
that of Matt.and Mark. At the same time this must be admitted, 
that 70edov rrovjoas they purposed, were inclined, to do (Arist. polit. 
6, 8) when from the context it is obvious that the sense is not 
confined to thesmere act of will,’ may signify they did it designedly, 
spontaneously, gladly, e.g. Isocr. Callim. 914 o? dustuynadans Tijs 
Todews TpoKivdovveve Ludv 7OéENna av who were willing to expose 


1 Yet in Ael. 1,7 otto, trav abtovs AaddvTes Soskuduov pdywot, we find the 
construction which corresponds to German usage. The Inf. instead of the Part. after 
AavOdvew occurs in Leo, Chronogr. p. 19. 

2 In 2 Pet. iii. 5 AavOdver todro O€AovTas I prefer the rendering Jatet eos hoc (what 
follows) volentes, i.e. volentes ignorant, to the other: datet eos (what follows), hoc (what 
precedes) volentes, i.e. contendentes ; since the former brings out more clearly the guilt 
of the mockers. In Col. ii. 18 also @éAwy is not to be taken as an adverb. 

8 In Jno. vi. 21 the matter appears according to John’s account not to have gone 
beyond a mere act of the will. 


490 


416 
bih ed, 


437 
Tth ed, 


468 § 54, ADVERBS. 


themselves to danger for you (and have proved their willingness 
by their deeds), who cheerfully encountered dangers in your 
cause (Xen. Cyr. 1, 1,3). The phrase é0érovct crovetv, however, 
when it does not indicate a mere act of the will, signifies according 
to the nature of the case: they do willingly, cheerfully (Demosth. 
Ol. 2 p.6a. dtav pev br ebvoias Ta Tpaywata cvoTH Kal Tact 
TavTa ouppeper... Kal ovuptrovely Kat hépew tas cupdopas Kab 
péverv €0€XovELY ot AVOpwrror), or they do rt of their own accord, 
spontaneously (Xen. Hier. 7, 9 dtav avOpwrrot avipa iyynoapevot ... 
ixavoy ... oTepava@ot... Kal SwpetcOar €OéXwot).! Cf. besides 
Stallb. Plat. symp. p. 56, and Gorg. p. 86; Ast, Plat. lege. p. 28. 
According to this, Mark xii. 38; Luke xx. 46 trav OeXOvT av 
mepiTateiy ev atodais who wish to go about i.e. who love to go 
about, would not be bad Greek (though rév dirovvtwy rep. would 
be preferable) ; yet this expression is perhaps to be referred pri- 
marily to the Hebraistic @éXeuv te delectart re, as in Mark @é\ewv is 
immediately followed by the Accusative adovacpovs as its object. 
5. In Hebrew, adverbial notions are to a still greater extent 
regarded as verbal; since in that language they not only are 
erammatically construed with the verb (which shows that the two 
are essentially connected), as in mid pom i.e. he sent again, which 
is imitated in Luke xx. 11 f. wposé@ero wéuar (but in Mark 
xii. 4 we find «cal rddev aréotetrev), Acts xii. 8 mposéBeTo cudNa- 
Bev xat Ilétpov besides he apprehended Peter also, Mark xiv. 25 
var. (thus frequently in Sept. zpostWévar and Mid. rpostiPecPar 
Gen. iv. 2; xi. 6; Exod. x. 28; xiv. 13; Deut. ili. 26; xvyniaey 
Josh. vii. 12, ete., likewise with Inf. Pass. Judges xiii. 21), but also 
both are used as finite verbs and joined together by and: he does 
much and weeps (Ewald 631).2 This last construction has been 
retained in particular phrases through all periods of the language ; 
whereas in other cases this mode of expression (as it were a ép 
dua Svoiv with verbs) passes over perceptibly into the other, which 
becomes predominant. In the N.T. also it was thought that 
instances of that former and more simple construction were to be 


1 Cf. also Orig. c. Marcion. p. 35 Wetst. 74 dixatws év tats ypapais cipnudva BobArce 
&dixws voety thou art inclined to understand, understandest designedly. 

2 The Sept. reproduce verbatim only a few of these Hebrew constructions, e.g. Judg. 
xiii. 10 érdyuvev f yuvh Kal @paye, 1 Sam. xxv. 42; Ps. cv.13; Dan. x. 18; Hos.i. 6. 
Cf. on the other hand, Gen. xxvi. 18; xxx.31; Job xix. 3; Ps. xxxii. 3. The phrase 
FO*4 is also rendered in the Sept. by the Part.: Gen. xxxviii. 5 mposOcioa rt @rexev 
biby etc., xxv. 1 mposOéuevos *ABpadu édaBe yuvatka, Job xxix. 1; xxxvi.1. It occurs 
once also in Luke xix. 11. Besides, cf. Tersch de Pentat. alex. p. 177. 


$54, ADVERBS. 469 


found,! as Rom. x. 20 dotodpa cal réyer speaks out boldly, Luke 
vi. 48 éoxawe cal éBabuve he dug deep (Schott), Col. ii. 5 yaipwv 
kal Brérrov seeing with joy (Beng. and Schott) ete. But in many 
passages referred to this head this explanation is quite inadmissi- 
ble, — as in 2 Cor. ix. 9 écxdpmicev, axe Tots évnow which must 
be rendered: he dispersed abroad, he gave to the poor (Ps. exii. 9), 
— in others it is unnecessary, as in Luke vi. 48 he dug and deep- 
-ened (crescit oratio, Beza) ; Jno. viii. 59 éxpvBn Kat e&ArOev x 
tov tepov (BCrus.) means: he hid himself and went forth i.e. either 
withdrew from their sight, rendered himself invisible (according 
to which a miraculous agavicpos of Christ is narrated), or he 
concealed himself and went (soon after) away (Liicke, Mey.). 
The narrator might easily from his point of view combine thus, 
and connect by «ai, two events not precisely simultaneous, yet 
following one another in rapid succession. Perhaps we should 
prefer, with Bengel, the first of the two explanations given, as 
the one more in accordance with the character of this evangelist, 
and in fact established if the words dveAda@v dua pécouv avTa@y are 
genuine. In Acts xv. 16 the word dvactpépm has nothing cor- 
responding to it either in the Sept. or in the Hebrew (Amos 
ix. 11); probably to the apostle as he makes the quotation it 
means, (to him) J will turn (myself) again (as also ay in many 
passages of the O. T. must by itself be rendered, e.g. Jer. xii. 15 
moma as L will return — to them, antithetic to Jehovah’s turn- 
ing away from them — and have mercy on them; Sept. avactp&pw 
Kal €henow avtovs), as tterwm is already contained in the com- 
pounds dvoixodopjocw, avopbocw. Likewise in Matt. xviii. 3 éav 
py otpapHre cat yévnoe etc. and Acts vii. 42 éotpewer 6 Beds 
kat Tapédwxe this verb appears independently : to turn i.e. accord- 
ing to the connection, respectively turn about, repent, and turn 


491 


away. In Luke i. 68 the absolute construction of évrecxéato (3PB) 438 


is obvious. ‘The above passage from Rom. is more like the Latin 


Tth ed, 


audet dicere; in which construction the idea of the first verb is 417 


not conceived of as subordinate. Render: he makes bold and 
says ; amoton. indicates the frame of mind, Aéyew its result, the 
utterance of the mental state in the bold saying. In Col. as above 
Paul probably means to say two things:? in spirit [am present 

1 Every discriminating reader will perceive that the constructions from Xen., Plaut., 


and Persius, which Kiihnél on Luke yi. 48 has adduced as analogous, are of a different 
nature. j 


2 In the quotation by Wetst. from Joseph. bell. jud. 3, 10, 2 the Codd. read xaipw 
kad BA€rwy or simply BAérwr. 


6th ed. 


ATO - §54, ADVERBS. 


with you, rejoicing (over you, ody buiv) and beholding your order 
etc. ‘To the general statement is annexed one that is special. It 
is also possible that in Prérrwv ete. the ground of the joy is sub- 
joined, and «aé is to be rendered namely, that is. As, however, 
the rejorcing is something caused by Arézrevv, the adverbial notion 
expressed independently by a finite verb could in no event precede 
the principal notion ;! nor could such a form of expression be 
supported, on careful consideration, by Hebrew analogy.2 Jas: 
iv. 2 hovevete kat &Prodre does not mean: ye envy even to the death 

492 (Schott), mortally,’ but as Stolz renders it, ye kill and envy; see 
Kern in loc. In Rev. iii. 19 the two verbal notions can easily be 
taken each. by itself. Others, even Ziillig, find here a hysteron- 
proteron ; Hengstenberg on the passage is right. 


Against the rendering of Mark x. 21 nyarynoev adroy Kal eirev ato blande 
eum compellavit (also Schott), see Mey. in loc. 


439 6. As prepositions without a case are sometimes used as adverbs 
hel. (see § 50, note 2, p. 423), so on the other hand, and still more 
re frequently, adverbs (especially of place and time) are connected 
with cases: as awa (even in Her. 6,118 aya 76 otpar@) which in 
later Greek became almost a preposition (@ua avrots Matt. xiii. 29 
equivalent to adv avtois, cf. Lucian. Asin. 41, 45; Polyb. 4, 48, 6 
etc. see Klotz, Devar. II. 97 sq.), ées of time and space (Klotz I. 
564, ef. és rovrov— for which the Greeks use dyps, péxpt, or in a 


1 Where the adverbial idea is promoted grammatically to an independence which 
does not logically belong to it, it can maintain such independence only by following 
the principal verb; cf. Plut. Cleom. 18 eiseA@dv kal Biaoduevos equivalent to Big eiseAOdy. 

2 The Hebrew verbs which when placed before other finite verbs are taken adverbially, 
express either an idea considered independently, as Job xix. 3 ye are not ashamed and 
ye deafen me, or a general idea which is more precisely defined by one more special, as: 
he made haste and ran to meet the Philistines ; he turned back and dug ete. In like manner 
1 Sam. ii. 3; which poetic passage, however, cannot be used in explaining the prose 
of the N. T. 

3 Gebser gains nothing by appealing to Jas. i. 11 and iii. 14 in support of this inter- 
pretation. Ini. 11 dvérevrev 6 fAwos ... kal eénpave expresses the rapid scorching of 
the herbage more aptly than davaretaas éhpave, cf. veni vidi vict, not veniens vidi, or 
veni vidensque vici. To rise and to scorch is one act; not, ‘after he is risen, he sets 
about scorching.’ It is precisely by expressing each of the moments by a finite verb 
that their rapid succession is more graphically represented. The second passage, 
iii. 14 ph katakavxaode kad pevder0e kata Tis GAnOelas, I render (and Wiesinger concurs 
with me) do not glory and lie against the truth; kat& tis dA. belongs properly to Kata- 
kavxac0u (Rom. xi. 18). But the apostle to explain xatax. thrusts in forthwith a 
stronger expression. By resolving it into uy) Katakavxduevor Pevdecbe kata THs aAnd. 
we gain only the tautology kata rT. aA. WedderOat, while the card in karakavx. is wholly 
neglected. 


$ 
§ 54, ADVERBS. AT1 


local sense &ws eis, &ws él; yet cf. Diod. 8. 1, 27 &@s axeavod), 
also with names of persons (even unto, to Luke iv. 42; Acts ix. 38; 
cf. Lament. ili. 389), ywpls (Jno. xv. 5 separated from, wn pévovtes 
év éuol vs. 4, cf. Xen. C. 6,1, 7; Polyb. 8, 103, 8, then very fre- 
quently without and besides), mdnotov Jno. iv. 5 with Gen., as in 
Sept. cf. Xen. Mem. 1, 4,6; Aeschin. dial. 3,3 (in Greek authors 
also with Dat.), but apamdnciov Phil. ii. 27 with Dat. (with very 
slight variation of Codd.), éyy’s with Gen. Jno. iii. 23; vi. 19; 
xi. 18 etc. and with Dat. Acts ix. 38; xxvii. 8, oWé with Gen. Matt. 
XXvili. 1, Gumpocbev with Gen., dricw (exclusively Hellenistic), 
dmiaGev with Gen., brepéxewa and édatTov ditto, and also éom and 
é&w with Gen. Several of these are so frequently construed with 
a case, that they may be taken directly as prepositions; just as 
in éws, ywpis, axpt, wéxpt, the adverbial meaning is already per- 
ceptibly receding, and in dvev (in the N. T.) has entirely disap- 493 
peared. 


Under this head comes also Phil. ii. 15 préoov yeveds oxodas (cf. Theophan. 
p- 9380), which Lchm. and Tdf. have properly admitted into the text. But 
in Matt. xiv. 24 76 rAotov 76n pécov THs GOaddoons jv the word pécov is an 
adjective: navis jam media maris erat, see Krebs in loc. In general, 
the use of adverbs with the Gen. in the N. T. diction appears very simple 
if we compare with it the far bolder constructions employed in the Greek 
of all periods, see Bhdy. 157 f. 

Combinations such as éws dprti, €ws dre, €ws drov, ews Tpwt, ews ew, ews 
katw and the like, are, indeed, especially common in later prose authors 
(in Sept. cf. €ws tore Neh. ii. 16, ews rivos, €ws ob Gen. xxvi. 13), but 
some such had already been sanctioned by earlier writers, Bhdy. 196; 
Krii. 266 f. As to adverbs with the article instead of nouns, see 
§ 18, 3 p. 109. 


T. Adverbs of place, even when not in relative clauses (§ 23, 2), 
are (originally by force of an attraction, Hm. Vig. 790, ad Soph. 
Antig. 517; Wex, Antig. I.107; Weber, Demosth. p. 446; Kriiger, 
grammat. Untersuchungen III. 306 ff.) interchanged by good 
prose writers ; particularly adverbs of rest are joined to verbs of 
motion when at the same time continuance in a place is to be 
expressed, Hm. as above, Bhdy. 350 (see above, on év, § 50, 4) 
cf. Matt. 11. 22 ébo87On éxet drreNOeiv, xvii. 20; xxviii. 16. So in 
the later writers exe? came to be used freely for éxetce, rod and 
mov for mot and ézoz, ob for whither. They are thus used in the 
Sept. and even in the N. T. (where e.g. d7os never occurs) ; as, 440 
Jno. Xvill. 3 6 “Iovdas ... épyeras éxet peta pavav Kal Nawrddwv ith od 


479 § 54, ADVERBS. 


419 (Arrian. Epict. 24, 113),! Rom. xy. 24 if’ tuav mporeuPOivas 
bth ed. €xe@ (to Spain), Jno. vii. 35; iii. 8 (adbev épyerar kal Tod Umdye), 
villi. 14; xi. 8; Luke xxiv. 28; Jas. iii. 4; Rev. xiv. 4, etc. This 
is an abuse easily to be explained in the language of conversation 
(in doe and évOdéde, évtavOoi, the meanings hic and huc coalesced 
still earlier, Krii. 268), and which ought not to be denied in the 
written language of the N. T.? 
With respect to other adverbs of place, not only does éow stand 
494 for within (évdov does not occur in the N. T.) Jno. xx. 26; Acts 
v. 23 (Ezek. ix.6; Lev. x. 18), but also éxeice for éxe? Acts xxii. 5 
a&wv Kal tos éxetae dvtas (see Wetst. in loc., cf. especially os 
éxelae oikéovtes Hippocr. vict. san. 2, 2 p. 35, and the Index to 
Agathias, to Menander, and to Malal. ed. Bonn.). On the other 
hand, Acts xiv. 26 00ev joav mapadedopévor TH YapiTL, AS even — 
Luther saw, is quite regular, cf. Mey. (and the emendation by 
Hemsterhuis, jecav, inadmissible in any case) ; and in Acts xxi. 3 
éxetce retains its meaning, as does dé7ov in Luke xii. 17. The 
adverbs é&wOev, Ecw0ev, xatw, in prose usage, as is well known, 
represent both relations, from without and without, downwards 
and beneath, ete. 
Further, how the usage of the later prose writers keeps pace with 
that of the N.'T. may be seen from the collections of Lob. Phryn. 
p- 48 sq. 128; Thilo, Act. Thom. p. 9. Cf. besides, Buttm. Philoct. 
p. 107; Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. p. 95 sqq.;% Schoem. Plutarch. 
Cleom. p. 186; Hartung, Casus S. 85 ff, also Kypke and Elsner 
on Matt. 1. 22. 
That adverbs of place (relat.) are also used with reference to 
persons is well known, cf. Rev. ii. 18 wap’ tiv, drov o catav. 


1 Her. 1, 121 éA@dv exe? plainly signifies : having arrived there (cf. the preceding 764 
xalpwy és Mlépoas), and so might épxeoOa in Jno. xviii. 3 perhaps be rendered. Heb. 
Vi. 20 8rou mpdSpouos eisAGe May mean, where entered ; see Bdhme, whom Bleek has not 
understood. 

2 Many passages, to be sure, have been referred to this head which are of another 
sort, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 86; Luke xii. 17,18. Here éxe? and of certainly mean: there, 
where. Not so Luke x. 1, where Hélemann’s translation ubi iter facere in animo erat is 
false because €pxeoOat does not mean iter fucere. Cf. Hm. Soph. Antig. p. 106. 

3 It is, indeed, not to be overlooked that forms such as 7rov, mo?, also éxe?, éxeioe, 
might be easily exchanged by transcribers, as actually happens often in MSS. of Greek 
authors (Schaef. Eurip. Hec. 1062). Nevertheless, in the case of the N. T. the number 
of such variations noted is extremely small. Also corrections, as Acts xxii. 5 éxe?, 
very rarely occur, since the readers were too much accustomed to such use of these 
adverbs to take offence at it. Besides, the old (Homeric) language coincides with the 
later prose in the interchange of local adverbs, while Attic prose keeps the forms more 
distinct. 


‘ 
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 473 


xatouxee Vechner, hellenol. p. 234. Besides, we find them used 
occasionally with a loose reference, Jno. xx. 19 7. @upav Kexreu- 
cpévov bt ov Hoav ot waOnrai there (of the chamber) where, Mark 
ii. 4; cf. Matt. i. 9 (Kru. 268). 


§55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 441 
Tth ed. 


1. The Greek language ‘has, as is well ADOWD two orders of oa 
negatives, ov, ovTe, ovKETL (oi8ets) etc., and yn, wrTe, mNKETL (umSels>) 
etc. The distinction between the two has been most fully unfolded 495 
by Hermann (ad Vig. p. 804 ff.; cf. Mtth. Il. 1437 ff; Mdy. 285 ff). 
Ov, for instance, is used when something is denied in plain terms . 
and directly (as a matter of fact) ; uw), where something is denied 
as mere matter of thought (according to supposition, and under 
conditions): the former is the objective, the latter the subjective 
negation.t And this distinction is in substance observed also in 
the N. T. ;2 as will be clear first of all, 


1Cf. besides, Z. Richter, de usu et discrim. particul. od et wh. Crossen, 1831-1834, 
8 Commentatt. 4to.; #. Franke, de particulis negantib. linguae gr. Rintel. 1832-1833, 
2 Comment. 4to. (reviewed by Benfey, in n. Jahrb. f. Philol. XII. 147 ff.) ; Bdumlein, in 
d. Zeitschr. f. Alterthumswiss. 1847. nr. 97-99, and remarks, highly instructive on the 
general subject also, concerning particular uses of both forms of negation in /7m. Soph. 
Oed. R. 568; Ajac. 76; Philoct. 706; Eurip. Androm. 379; Eimsley, Eurip. Med. p. 155 
Lips. ; Schaef. Demosth. I. 225, 465, 587, 591; IL. 266, 327, 481, 492, 568; III. 288, 
299; IV. 258; V. 730; Stallb. Plat. Phaed. p. 43, 144. (The theory of Hermann is 
combated on the ground of Thiersch’s principles by Hartung, Lehre von den griech. 
Partik. II. 73 ff., and he is followed by Rost, Gramm. 743; in the main, however, he 

-at last agrees with [erm., and the doubt through which he was led to his views has 
been solved by Klotz, Devar. II. 666. G. F’. Gayler’s essay, particular. gr. sermonis 
negantium accurata disputatio, Tubing. 1836. 8vo., is an industrious collection of ex- 
amples, but is deficient in clearness.) On the difference between non and haud in Latin 
see Franke I. 7 sq., the review in Hall. L. Z. 1834. no. 145, and Hand, Tursell. ITT. 16 ff. 
(who at the same time explains od as the qualitative, wf as the modal negation). The — 
comparison of the Heb. DN with wh (Hwald, 530) can be less perfectly carried through ; 
precisely in the more delicate relations the correspondence fails. 

2 That the N.'T. authors observed almost invariably this in itself delicate difference, 
is due not to their theoretical knowledge, but to the sense of propriety they acquired by 
much intercourse with those who spoke Greek ; precisely as we also learn the some- 
times conventional difference between the synonyms of our mother tongue. In par- 
ticular instances, however, a foreigner might well be expected to err, since even 
Plutarch (Schaef. Demosth. III. 289; Plutarch. V.6, 142,475), Lucian (Schaef. Demosth. 
I. 529; Schoemann, Plutarch. Agis p. 93; Fritzsche, quaestion. Lucian. p. 44), Pausan. 
(Franke, I. 14), Aelian (Jacobs, Acl. anim. p. 187), cf. Mdv. 245; Mtth. 1444, are said 
to have sometimes interchanged the two negatives. Cf. also on rt wh for 671 od Ellendt, 
praef. ad Arrian. I. 24sq. I would not, however, assert that in these passages gram- 
matical acuteness might not repeatedly be able to discover the reason for ov or uh; 

60 


474 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


a. From the examination of a few passages in which the two neg- 
atives occur together. Jno. iii. 18 6 wuctevwy eis avTov ov Kpiverat, 
442 0 5€ uw TWicTEV@V HON KEéKpLTAL, OTL WH TeTiaTevKe etc. (cf. Hm. as 
ith el. above 805) ; «pivecOas is denied as matter of fact by ov, i.e. it is 
asserted that in fact a judgment does not take place. The second 
muoTevwv, however, is negatived by the particle 4) merely as a 
496 supposed case, for o pw mor. means, who (ever) does not believe, 
421 uf one does not believe (0 ob mictevwv would indicate a definite in- 
ithe dividual who does not believe); hence follows also érv 47) remiot., 
since a case is merely supposed (quod non crediderit). This usage 
is not contradicted by 1 Jno. v. 10 6 wy mictevmy TO Oe@ rrevoTnvy 
TETOLNKEY AUTOV, OTL OU TeTiaTEUKEV Els THY paptupiay etc. Here 
the apostle in the last words passes suddenly from the mere 
supposition (6 sa mot.) to the matter of fact: the pu) mucrevew 
had already begun, and John pictures to himself now an actual 
unbeliever. 

Mark xii. 14 éeors khvoov ... Sodvar 7) od; SHpmev, H 4H SOpev ; 
where, in the first instance, inquiry is made as to the objective 
reason for paying tribute; in the second, a subjective principle is 
expressed: are (ought) we to give etc. Cf. Hm. Vig. 806, on 
Aristoph. Thesmoph. 19, and Stallb. Plat. rep. II. 270. 

Eph. v. 15 Prérere as axpiBOs TepiTrateite, wn ws Aoohot AAN 
ws cogol; the 2 @s acodo: etc. is the direct explanation of was, and 
like that dependent on @dérere,—hence the subjective negation. 

2 Cor. x. 14 od yap, as pi) Efixvovpevos eis bas, UTrEpEKTEvVOmED 
éavtovs we do not overstretch ourselves (objectively negatived), as 
though we had not reached to you, a mere supposition ; in point of. 
fact it is not so. Cf., on the other hand, 1 Cor. ix. 26. 

Rom. xi. 21 ef yap 6 Oe0s Tav Kata iow KrAddwY OK épeicarTo, 
LNTwS OVE cov deicetar if God spared not (matter of fact, he 
has in reality not spared them), so (it is to be feared) lest he also 
spare not thee. Here the apostle might have uttered the sentence 
categorically, so will he also not spare thee; ‘but he prefers to give 
ita milder turn by using paras: lest perhaps ovdé cod deicerat 
become true; and every apprehension is subjective (Rev. ix. 4). 
Cf. Plat. Phaed. 76 b. foBodpas, yu adprov tyviKdde OUKETL 7 avOpa- 
Tov ovbELsS aklws olos Te TOUTO TrovnoaL, pP. 84b. ovdev Sevvov, MH 
hoBnOn, dmws wr... ovdev Ett ovdapod 7, Thuc. 2, 76; see 
Gayler pp. 427, 430. 
while we must never forget that sometimes there is no stringent reason in favor of ob 


or wh, but either negative may be used according to the author’s view of the case, Hm. 
Vig. 806. 


§55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 475 


1 Jno. v. 16 édy tis tdn Tov adeAov avtod apwaptavoyTa awapTtiav 
42) Tpos Oavatov ... Taca adikia dwaptia éott Kal EoTW apaptia 
‘ov Tpos Odvaroy (in the former clause p27 is used as following up 
a subjective observation and dependent on éay ty, in the latter ov, 
since an objectively valid principle is asserted, an idea dogmatically 
real is laid down). 

Jno. vi. 64 eioly é& bua twes, of ov Tictevovow* HOder yap... 0 
Ine., tives eiolv of fo) MeaTevovTes, the former clause conveying a 
matter of fact, the second a supposition, who they were that would 
not believe, qui essent, qui non crederent. Cf. besides Rom. v. 13 ; 497 
mmO.Y. 23; xiv. 24; xv.24; Actsiv.20; x.14; xxv. 17f; 1 Jno. 
iv.8; v.12; 3Jno.10; 2 Thess. iii. 10; Gal.iv.8; 2 Cor. ii. 18; 443 
Heb. iv. 2, 15.1 ith ed. 
 b. But the same result which these passages give follows also 422 
from those in which px oceurs alone: Matt. xxii. 25 pi eyov et 
oTépua apiKe THY yuvatka avTOD TS adeAPH avTod, where pr) Exwv 
is used with reference to the law that made this provision (ééy tus 
aTo0avn wn éxwy etc. vs. 24): not having, he left behind etc., as 
one not having in the sense of the law, he left etc. (ov« éywv would 
exhibit the not having as if narrating something purely a matter 
of fact) ; in Mark xu. 20 we find in the narrative form ov« adiKe 
oméppa. Col. i. 25 eive eruyévere TH TWioTeL ... Kal pr) peTaKWov- 
pevot aro THs €Atr., Where the not being moved away (in a proposi- 
tion beginning with elye) is put as a condition, consequently as 
something only supposed. 2 Thess. i. 8 dcd0vtos exdienow Tots 1) 
elooat Oeov Kal Tots 47) UTaKoVoVoL TO evayy.; the statement here 
is general: such as know not God, whoever they are, wherever 
such are to be found (consequently a supposition), cf. 11.12. Rom. 
xiv. 21 kadov 70 wn hayety Kpéd (the not eating as something sup- 
posed: if any one eat not; To ov dayeiv would represent the not 


1 Passages from Greek authors in which od and wh appear together in the same main 
proposition, with more or less obvious difference, are e.g. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 1, 3, 
68 TadTa ovK aToAoyoUMEVOU HV, GAAG KaKots emMANpodvTOS Kaka Kal UNKETL peETpiws, 
GAAG Updny emicmwuévov Tas amoplas, 2,60 Aexréov, as ef uNndév eat PytopiKis TEAoS, 
ovsév eort pytopixh (2,107), 2,110; hypotyp. 3,1, 2; Lucian. catapl.15 éya dre wndév 
exwy évéxupoy ev 7G Blo, odk dypdv, ov ouvoilay, ob xpucdy etc. Soph. Antig. 686 
ovr ay Sduvaluny, war emortaluny Aéyew, Philoct. 1048; Demosth. Callicl. 736 b. ; 
pac. 23 a.; Phorm. 604 a.; Xen. C. 2, 4, 27; Aristot. polit. 6,8; rhet. 1,11, 31; 2, 2, 
and 15; Lucian. dial. mort. 16,2; adv. indoct. 5; Strabo 3, 188; 15, 712 ; Himer. oratt. 
23,18; Plutarch. Pompej. 23; apophth. p. 183f.; Aclian. anim. 5, 28; Joseph. Antt. 
16,9, 3. Cf. besides, Gayler p. 291. From the Fathers, cf. Origen c. Mare. p. 26 
Wetst. ; from the apocrypha, Acta apocr. p. 107. Particularly noteworthy is Agath. 
2,23 ep btw by odpatt wh OGtToOy KatamTaiey of bpyeis 7 of KivEes OVK adTika emiporTavTes 
Siacmapdtasey etc. 


476 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


eating as something objective, —an actually existing practice it 
may be). Rom. xv. 1 odedAomev Sé sets... Kal 47 EavTois apéoKew 
(vs. 3 narratively: kal yap 0 Xpictos ovyx éEavT@ Hpecev). Hence, 
naturally, with the Optative when a mere wish is expressed (Franke 
I. 27), Mark xi. 14 pnxére x cod eis Tov aidva pndets KapTov 
payou (yet some Codd. read here dayn), 2 Tim. iv. 16; and in 
Imperative sentences, Rom. xiv. 1 tov aodevodvta th ticTer mpos- 
498 NapBavecbe, wu els Siaxpices diadoyicpov (xii. 11); Phil. ii. 12, 
where some erroneously refer the words py ws év TH mapovaia ete. 
to urnkovcate, in Which case ov would have been indispensable. 
In accordance with the difference above defined, yu) in general 
will express the weaker (cf. also Hm. Philoct. 706), and ov, as 
categorical, the stronger negation. Nevertheless 2) is also at times 
more emphatic than ov (Hm. Soph. Antig. 691), inasmuch as, if 
444 (even) the supposition is denied, more is expressed than if the 
ithe’ actual existence of a thing (as a fact) is denied. See under 
no. 5. In like manner is the Latin haud sometimes the stronger, 
sometimes the weaker negation, Franke I. 7; cf. Hand, Tursell. 
ITI, 20. 


Where od belongs to a single word (verb) to which in the language 
there is a negative directly antagonistic, it coalesces with that word and 
expresses this exactly contrary idea, as ov« éav to prevent Acts xvi. 7, od 

423 Oédrew nolle 1 Cor.x.1. See Franke I. 9 sq., cf. under no. 6. Ov combined 
6th ed. with nouns into one idea obliterates their meaning altogether: Rom. x. 19 
rapalyhuow tas er otk ver over a no-nation, ix. 25 Kadéow Tov ov adv 
foov Aadv pov Kal THY otk HyaTnEVHV HyaTnLEvyV, 1 Pet. ii. 10 — (all quota- 
tions from O.T.); cf. Thuc. 1, 187 7 od diudAvors the not breaking (the 
bridge had not been broken), 5, 50 7 ov« e€ovcia, Eurip. Hippol. 196 ov« 
dmrodeéts, see Monk in loc.; Sturz, indead Dion. Cass. p. 245; Fr. Rom. II. 
424. How this combination differs from that with j7 (7) m7 dudAvors), see 
Franke, as above, I. 9. Numerous examples of both in Gayler p. 16 sqq. 

The simple, accented, ot no (Matt. v. 37; Jas. v.12; 2 Cor. i. 17 f.) 
occurs in answer to a question only in Matt. xii, 29; Jno. i. 21, (for 
instances from Greek writers, see Gayler p. 161); the fuller form oix 
eywye would have been more usual. 


2. Let us consider now those cases, the most frequent of all, in 
which a negation is expressed by yw; this takes place: 

a. In (wishes) commands, resolutions, encouragements, and 
that not only with verbs of the sort, that is to say Imperatives and 
Subjunetives, Matt. vii. 1 yu) «piwere, Gal. v. 26 ur yevepeba Kevo- 
dofor, 2 Thess. iii. 10, see § 56, 1, but also with words which are 


§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. ATT 


considered as integral parts of the command, etc., 1 Pet. v. 2 
Tolmavate ... pa avaycacTos, | Pet. i. 13 f.; 1 Tim. v. 9; Luke 
Mien Loor, vo; Rom. xiii. 18); Phil. iin 4,12; Heb. x. 25; 
Acts x. 20. 

b. In telic clauses, with tva Matt. vii. 1; xvi. 20; Rom. xi. 25; 
Eph. ii. 9; Heb. xii. 3; Mark v. 43; 2 Cor. v. 15; vii. 9; Eph. 499 
iy. 14, or é7@s Luke xvi. 26; 1 Cor. i. 29; Matt. vi. 18; Acts 
viii. 24; xx.16. So also with single words of such clauses, 
Rom. viii. 4; Eph. ii. 12; Phil. i. 27f.; m.9; 2 Thess. . 12; 
Heb. xii. 27. 

ce. In conditional sentences (Hm. Vig. 805), with e¢ Jno. xv. 22 

el pr) HAOoV, dapTiay ovK elyooay, XVill. 50 ev pa) Hv obTOS KaKOV 
TOLOV, OVK av cot Tapedmxapev, Matt. xxiv. 22; Acts xxvi. 32; 
Rom. vii. 7; Juno. ix. 33, and with éav Matt. v. 20; xii. 29; Rom. 
x. 15; 2 Tim. ii. 5, not only with reference to the whole proposi- 
tion, but also with single words which are considered as condi- 
tional, 1 Tim. v. 21; Tit.i. 6 ef tus éotiv avéyKrnTos ... pry ev 
KaTnyopia acwTias, ll. 8; Jas. i. 4, 26. 

In all these cases the necessity of the subjective negation is 
clear ; for every condition, design, purpose, command, falls within 
the province of what is merely conceived of. 

In conditional sentences od occurs not infrequently; in the N.T. 445 
pretty often, in the older writers with logical necessity only where Mie, 
but a single word of the conditional sentence (hardly the verb 
merely Krii. 271) is negatived, so that the negation coalesces with 
this word into a single idea, Hm. Vig. 833; Eurip. Med. p. 344; 
Soph. Oed. C. 596 ; Schaef. Plut. IV. 3961; Mehlhorn, Anacr. 

p. 139; Bremi, Lys. p. 111; Schoemann, Isae. p. 324 sq.; e.g. 424 
Soph. Aj. 1131 e¢ tovs @avovras ovk eds Oarrew if thou hinderest eh 
Clliad. 4,55), Lys. Agor. 62 e¢ pév od modrAol (i.e. dAlyoL) Hoar, 
Thue. 3,55 e¢ aroorivar ’AOnvaiov otk 70edjnoapev, Her. 6, 9. 

Cf. Gayl. p. 99 sqq.; Mtth. 1440; Krii. 271. (On the analogous 
omws ov see Held, Plut. Timol. 857.) According to this there is 
nothing strange in Matt. xxvi. 42; Luke xvi. 31; Jno. v. 47; 
Rom. viii. 9; 1 Cor. vii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 10,14; 1 Tim. iii. 5; v. 8; 
Rey. xx. 15, ete., and as little in 2 Cor. xii. 11 ef xat odSév eiws. 

On the other hand, Lipsius (de modor. in N. T. usu p. 26 sqq.) 
has adduced a number of other passages, which contradict the 


1 Schaef. Demosth. III. 288: ob poni licet, quando negatio refertur ad sequentem 
vocem cum eaque sic coalescit, unam ut ambae notionem efficiant ; uw? ponitur, quando 
negatio pertinet ad particulam conditionalem. Cf. Rost, Gr. S. 745. 


* te 


478 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


above canon, or appear to do so; since, indeed, generally in the 

N.1. if not is expressed more frequently by ed od than by e2 pi, 

which latter phrase most commonly signifies except. We divide 
500 these passages into four classes: 

a) Such as have nothing to do with the question: Luke xii. 26 
ef ovdé EAayLtaTOV SUvacGe, Ti TEpl TOV AoLToV pepyuvate; for Et 
here is conditional only in appearance ; in reality it is equivalent 
to évet, Krii. 271. Translate ¢f (as is clear from the alleged cases), 
i.e. since you cannot do even the least etc. (hence always Gavydalo 
et ov cf. Kithner II. 406). So also Rom. xi. 21; Jno. ii. 12; 
v.47; x. 855 Heb. xii. 25; 2 Pet. 11.4; cf. Soph. Oed. Col. 596 
et Oérovtdas y ode cob devryev Karov si, quum te volunt recipere, 
ne tibi quidem decorum est exsulem esse, and Aeschin. ep. 8 e dé 
ovodé ory éxelvo dvéyvaxas é&cévar etc., Sext. Empir. Math. 7, 434 
ef oVO avTo TovTo Hoe etc. Xenoph. A. 7,1, 29; Aesop. 23, 2, see 
Bhdy. 386; Franke, Demosth. p. 202; Gayl. 118; Hm. Aeschyl. 
Il. 148. 

b) Such as, when viewed more closely, are in unison with the 
above canon: not only 1 Cor. x1. 6 € yap ov KataxanrvrreTas yun, 
Kal KeipacOw if a woman is unveiled, she ought also to be shorn, 
2 Thess. ili. 10, but also Jno. x. 87 ef ov row Ta Epya Tod TaTpOS 
[LOv, [1p TLaTEVETE ot eb OE TOM, KAV EOL [7 TLoTEVNTE, Tots Epryous 
muatevoate if I omit the works of my Father (and thus withhold 
from you the proofs of my divine mission) etc. ; but if I do them 
etc., Jno. iii. 12; Rom. viii. 9; Rev. xx. 15; cf. Lys. accus. Agor. 

446 76 éav pev obv hacky Pptvyov arroktetvat, ToUTwY wéuvnobe ... eav 
hel. § od hacky, gpece airév ete. but if he denies it, Sext. Empir. 
Math. 2, 111 ef wéev Ajppard twa exer... eb SE ovK Eyer etc. but if 
he is destitute of them, 9, 176 et ev ovK exer, havrAdv éott TO Getov 

. eb O€ Evel, EoTal TL TOV Oeod KpelitTov, hypotyp. 2, 5. 160. 175 ; 
Lucian. paras. 12; Galen. temper. 1,3; Mr. Anton. 11, 18 p. 193 
Mor. (cf. also Euseb. de die dom. p. 9 Jani). Nor is there any- 
thing to object against 1 Cor. xv. 13: e¢ avdotacis vexpdv ovK 
éote if the resurrection of the dead is a chimera, etc. ; cf. in the 
preceding context 7@s Néyouci Tues OTL dvaTTACLS VEKPOV OVK EoTW; 
On vs. 16 cf. Philostr. Apoll. 4, 16, p. 154. 

c) Cases in which the proposition with e? od merely negatives 

425 the idea which is expressed affirmatively in a corresponding propo- 
bthed. sition, without the od coalescing with the negatived word into a 


1 ei od and ef uf are well distinguished in a single sentence in Acta Thom. p. 57 ed. 
Thilo. 


§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. ATO 


single opposed idea: 1 Cor. ix. 2 ef addous ovK etl amrdcToXos, 
araye vuiv eis, si aliis non sum apostolus, vobis certe sum. Luke 
xi. 8, ef. xviii. 4. But even in such oppositions later writers use 
ei ov, e.g. Sext. Empir. Math. 11, 5 e¢ pév ayabov éotuv, &v Tov TpLov 
yevnoeTat, €¢ O€ OUK EaTLV ayaDOY, TOL KaKOV éoTLY, 7) OUTE KAKOV 
-éatuw ovte ayaboy éotw, Diog. L. 2, 36 et péev yap Te TOV TposovT@Y 
NéEcvav, StopPacovTat, Et O ov, ovdev Tpos 7uas, Where the sense is 
not: if, however, they be silent about it, but, if they do not say 
something useful,! cf. Judg. ix. 20; Judith v. 21; Demosth. epp. 
p.125a.; Basilic. II. 525, and Poppo Xen. Anab. p. 358. 

_d) Cases in which ov likewise antithetically denies, without, 
however, an express affirmative proposition preceding: Jas. ii. 11 
et ov povyevoers (With reference to the preceding pu) povyevons), 
dovevoets é, yéyovas TapaBarns vouov if thou dost not commit adul- 
tery, yet if thou killest,? i. 23; ili. 2; 1 Cor. xvi. 22 e& tis ov pret 
Tov KUpLoV, Tw avaYewa (where the rendering, if any one hateth 
the Lord, would probably not represent the apostle’s meaning) ; 
2 Jno. 10 et tus Epyerau mpos Uuas Kal TavTnV THY SidayiVY ov héper, 
Luke xiv. 26. 

For the later’ prose writers, then, who in general use e¢ ov (as 
the stronger and more expressive form) much oftener than the 
older writers (who were rather frugal in its use), we may state the 
rule thus (cf. also Anton, Progr. de discrim. particul. ov et pu, 
Gorlic. 1823, 4to. p. 9): where nod in a conditional proposition is 
emphatic,® e¢ od (as in Latin sz non) is used; but where 7 not 


501 


stands without emphasis on the negation, e¢ uw (as in Latin nist): 447 
e.g. if thou dost not commit adultery (with reference to the pre- Wel 


ceding yu) wovx.), if any man loveth not the Lord (as he ought), 
if I am noét an apostle unto others, Jno. i. 25 if thou art not the 
Christ, cf. vs. 20. The emphasis is brought out by an antithesis, 
either open (1 Cor. ix. 2) 4 or concealed (1 Cor. xvi. 22). It lies, 
however, in the nature of the case that od then negatives only a 
part of the conditional proposition, not the proposition itself. 


1 Macar. homil. 1,10. Cf. also édy Diog. L. 1,105 édy véos dv roy olvoy ov bépns, 
yépwv yevouevos tdwp ofoers. 

2 Equivalent to ef od poixedwy Zon, povedwy S¢, cf. Arrian. Epict. 1, 29, 35; 2,11, 22. 
On the contrary, Thuc. 1, 32 ei wh peta Kaxlas, dd&ns SE paAAov Guaptia... évaytla 
TOAM@UEV. 

8 Mehlhorn, as above, gives the rule: ubi simpliciter negatio affirmationi ita opponatur, 
ut negandi part. voce sit acuenda, semper od poni, ubi contra verbum voce inprimis, 
notandum pf esse debere. Cf. also Poppo on Xen. Anab. as above. 

4 Cf. also e.g. Aesop. 7, 4 ef od oo) todro mposépeper, ode by huiv abTd ovveBovrcves 
if it were not useful to thee, thou wouldst not advise us to it. 


480 $55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


"Oste (Krii. p. 272 f.) of a consequence even when represented as mere 
matter of fact is used in the N. T. always with py and the Infinitive, Matt. 
viii. 28; Mark i. 45; ii. 2; iii. 20; 1 Cor.i. 7; 1 Thess. i. 8. Onlyan 
2 Cor. iii. 7 is there a logical ground for it in the conditional proposition ; 
Engelhardt, Plat. apol. p. 219. 
496 After ore and éet because (in direct discourse) od follows regularly, Jno. 
bth ed. viii. 20, 37; Rom. xi. 6; Luke i. 834; Biiumlein S. 773; dre py in con- 
502 ditional discourse occurs in Jno. iii. 18. On the contrary, we have in Heb. 
ix. 17, in direct discourse, dia0yKn éxt vexpots PeBaia, érel pynwore ioyvet, 
ore Gf O diabgwevos, which Béhme explains thus: pore seems here to 
negative even the idea of icxvew; consequently in general to deny more 
strongly than ovzore. Yet Bohme’s rendering of pyrore by nondum is 
erroneous ; it means, never, never at all (Heliod. 2,19). And perhaps 
the author gave the preference to pyore on this account also, because he 
is speaking in general terms and not of any particular testament. How- 
ever, in later authors the subjective negation frequently occurs in connection 
with ézet (67) guandoquidem, not only where something is clearly desig- 
nated as a subjective reason (as is perceptible even in Aelian. 12, 63; cf. 
besides, Philostr. Apoll. 7, 16; Lucian. Hermot. 47), but also where an 
objectively valid reason is assigned (Gayl. 183 sqq.; Mdyv. p. 245; on 
Lucian and Arrian in particular, Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. praefat. p. 23 sqq., 
cf. also Ptol. geogr. 8, 1, 3), in so far as the reason falls back at last on a 
supposition. Others (Bengel, Lchm.) take pore in Heb., as above, as 
an interrogative, as indeed éreé often introduces a question, Rom. iii. 6 ; 
1 Cor. xiv. 16; xv. 29; Klotz, Devar. p. 543. This seems to me, however, 
to be too rhetorical for the style. 
3. e. In relative clauses with dv (éav), Luke viii. 18 ds av py éxn, 
Acts iii. 23 (Sept.) maga Wuyi, Aris éav uy axovon, Rev. xiii. 16 
dgot av pn Tposkuynowow, Luke ix. 5. In all these cases nothing 
is denied as a matter of fact of particular subjects, but the lan- 
guage is only conditional and supposed: whoever hath not (may: 
not have). Relative clauses without dv have regularly ov, Jno. 
iv. 22 mposxuvette 6 ove oldate, Luke xiv. 27 dstis ov Baorages, 
Rom. x. 143 1 Cor. v. 13° 2 Cor. viii. 103 1 Jno. iv.'6, €tc.eaaae 
forth as they deny something as matter of fact ; on the other hand, 
448 ju) occurs sometimes in such cases when the negation refers only 
ithe. t) a supposition (assumption, condition) (Hm. Vig. 805; Kri. 
271), 2 Pet. i. 9 6 wn mdapects tadta, Tupros éatwv whoso lacketh, 
if any man lack, ete. In1 Tim. v.18; Tit. i.11 ta pu) déovra 
and & pa oe? (cf. Rom. i. 28; Soph. Phil. 583) express merely a 
moral conception: quae, st quae non sunt honesta; whereas @ 
ov det would denote positively inhonesta, the kind of unseemly 
things objectively present, cf. Gayl. 240f. In Col. ii. 18 su) before 


:”- 


§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. A81 


ewpaxev } is expunged by the more recent critics; only Tisch. in 


_ the 2d [and 7th] Leipzig ed. restores it, and undoubtedly it has 503 


the greatest amount of external authority on its side (Mey. states 
the authorities imperfectly). If the negation [which is wanting, 
moreover, in Cod. Sin.*] be genuine (some authorities have ov), 
py must be used because even the relative clause is viewed by 427 
Paul subjectively, as undeis tu. kataBpaBevéto.? 6th ed, 


Frequently os is followed by oi, where, since apparently a mere sup- 
position is uttered, some have expected py (Lipsius de modis p. 14), as in 
Matt. xxiv. 2 od pu) adeO} Bde AMMos eri AiHov, Os od KaTadrvOyoeras (but 
here 7 is not indispensable, inasmuch as the words deny a matter of fact) ; 
and also where in Latin the Subjunctive would stand, and therefore py 
would have been expected, Matt. x. 26 otd& éore Kexadvppevov, 0 ovK 
drokaAupOynoerat, Luke viii. 17; xii. 2; Matt. xxiv. 2; cf 1 Kings viii. 46. 
For instances from Greek authors (Hm. Vig. p. 709) see Eur. Hel. 509 sq. 
dvnp yap ovdeis Ge... Os... 00 Swoaet Bopav, Lucian. sacrif. 1 otk oida, 
el Tis OUTW KaTHpYS €oTL, OsTIs Od yeAdoerat, Soph. Oed. R. 3874 oddeis Os 
ovdxt Tovd dvediet taxa. In all these cases the relative clause is considered 
as a definite, objective predicate, as if it were said dyyp otdets Gde od ducer 
Bopav; even in construction with the Optative, Isocr. Evagor. p. 452 otk 
ert, Ostis oDK Gv Aiaxidos mpoxpiveev, also p. 199; Plut. apophth. p. 196 ¢. 
Closely allied to this is the phrase tis éorw, 6s od followed by the Pres. 
indic. Acts xix. 35; Heb. xii. 7; cf. Dion. comp. 11 ed. Schaef. p. 120, 
which in sense is equivalent to ovdeis éorw, ds od (for which Strabo 6, 286 
has ovdev pépos airns éeorw, 0 47)... Tvyxaver) ; On the other hand, ovdels 
éotiv, 0s ov with the Preterite,is beyond the range of those cases in which 
one would expect py, Xen. An. 4, 5, 381; Thuc. 3, 81; Lucian. Tox. 22; 
asin. 49; cf. Heind. Plat. Phaed. p. 233; Weber, Demosth. 356 sq. See 
also Gayl. p. 257 sqq., who, it must be confessed, has not discriminated 
sufficiently. 


4, f. With Infinitives (Mtth. 1442; Krii. 273), not only such as 
depend on a verb of thinking, speaking, commanding, wishing (of 449 
course also in the construction of the Accusative with the Infini- thed 
tive) Matt. 11.12; v. 34, 39; Luke ii. 26; v.14; xx. 7; xxi. 14; 
eee topes v.28 + x. 28);+xvi09,138';) xix. 81 > xxi. 4; 
mee resex ovis 21.3 +Rom: ti. 21 £3) x18 ; xiii: 8 391 Cor.-v. 9, 11; 


1 Cf. Philostr. Apoll. 7,27 dieréyero & wh exelv@ mpotBauve quae illi haud prodessent. 
From the Sept. may be adduced Exod. ix. 21 ds wy mposéaxe TH Siavoia eis 7d pijua 
kupiov in Opposition to 6 goBovuevos 7d pjua kuplov vs. 20; thus just like ef S€ wh in 
antithesis. Ov and yf after relat. in parallel propositions, see Arrian. Epict. 2, 2, 4. 

2 In propositions with particles of time (Gayler, p. 185 sqq.) wn does not happen to 
occur in the N. T.; several times od is quite regularly joined to the Indicative of time, 
Jno. ix. 4; xvi. 25; 2 Tim. iv. 3; Acts xxii. 11. 

61 


482 §55, NEGATIVE PARTICLES, 


2 Cor. ii. 1; x. 2; Heb. ix. 8, etc., or by which a design is ex- 
pressed 2 Cor. iv. 4 ériddwoe Ta vojpata... eis TO pn) avydoaL, 
1 Thess. ii. 9 épyafopwevos mpds TO pun emruBapjoa, Acts xx. 27 ovy 
O04 wrrecredaunv Tov pr) avayyeinat, 1 Pet. iv. 2, — but also where the 
Infinitive is the subject of a proposition, 2 Pet. ii. 21 xpetrrov mv 
avtots pa) ereyvoxévar, Luke xvii. 1, or, being joined to a prepo- 
sition, is resolvable into a finite verb with ov, Jas. iv. 2 ov« éyere 
dua TO py aitetcOar tas (6tt ovK aiteicOe tpels), Luke viii. 6; 
Acts xxvill. 18; Heb. x. 2. But in that first case ésreyvwx. is 
denied only as a supposition (in fact they had known), and in the 
second the cause is represented not objectively, but as primarily 
the thought of the speaker. Precedents from the classics for all | 
428 this, see in Gayler 294 sqq.; cf. Rost 750; Baumlein nr. 99, S. 
‘the 788 f. Also those parts of speech which belong essentially to the 
Infinitive clause are negatived by pw, e.g. 2 Cor. x. 2. 
The cases in the Infinitive construction in which ov is, and can 
or must be, used have been pointed out by Rost T47f.; Kru. 274; 
Baumlein 8.778. In Jno. xxi. 25 éav ypadnrat cal” Ev, od’ adbtov 
oiwat TOV KOTO YwpHoa Ta ypad. ByBria the negation belongs to 
oiuat, cf. Xen. M. 2, 2,10 eyo peév oipar, e¢ ToravTny pn Svvacat 
dhépew pntépa, ayaa ce ov dvvacba dépew. In Heb. vii. 11 tis 
éTt ypela Kata tiv Ta~w Medyiced. Erepov aviotacbat lepéa Kab 
ov Kata THY Tak “Aapwv Eyer Oar the negation does not belong 
to the Infinitive, but negatives the words cata tr. ta&.’Aap. Od 


is often in dependent clauses joined thus to a single word, Kru. 
8. 270. 


When after a verb of wnderstanding or saying, in direct discourse ete., 
the assertion, observation etc. is expressed in a clause with o7u, the negation 
is made by ov, Luke xiv. 24 A€yw tyiv, dre oddets Tov dvdpav ... yedoerat 
Tod deizvov, xvii. 29; Jno. v. 42 éyvwxa tyas dre riv dyarny Tov Geod odK 
exere etc., vill. 55; Acts ii. 31 etc. The proposition with or stands here 
as a pure objective proposition just as in indirect question (§ 41, 4), as if 
it were ovdels ... yedoerat, TodTO byiv A€yw, while the Infinitive construction 
brings it into immediate connection with, and consequently dependence 
on, A€yw, dp etc. Cf. Krii. 253, 270; Mdv. 235. 


5. g. With Participles (Gayl. 274 sqq.; Krii. 274 f.) wa is used 
not only when they belong to a proposition which, as expressing 
command, design, condition, etc., requires the subjective negation 
(see no. 2), Eph. v. 27; Phil. i. 28; ii. 4; iii. 9; 2 Thess. ii. 12; 
Heb. vi. 1; Jas.i1.55; Tit. ii. 9f.; Rom. viii. 4; xiv. 3; Matt 
xxii. 24; Acts xv. 88; Luke ili. 11; 2 Cor. xii. 21; cf. Soph. Oed. 


§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 483 


©. 1155, 980; Plato, rep. 2,870 e.; Xen. Cyr. 1, 4, 26; Krii. 275, 450 
— but also under other circumstances : ith el, 

a. when they refer, not to particular persons, but to a supposed 505 - 
genus: Matt. xii. 30 6 wu) @y pet Ewod Kat éuod éotiv he who is 
not with me i.e. whoever belongs to this class of men that I have 
in mind, st quis non stet a meis partibus, Him. Vig. 805; Mtth. 
1441 sq.; Krii. 174 (0 ove dy per euod would mean a particular 
individual who actually was not with him), Matt. xxv. 29; Luke 
Mieao; Jno. x.1; xii, 48; xx. 24; Rom. iv. 5; xiv. 22; Jas. i113; 

iv. 17; 1 Jno. ii. 4; 1 Cor. vii. 37; hence with was Matt. xiii. 19; 
Jno. xv.2. Also 2 Jno. 7 wodXol mAdvor eisiAOov eis TOV KOT MOV OL 

HN oporoyorrvtes Inaodv Xp. etc. belongs here; the words do not 
‘mean many deceivers — namely, those who do not confess (oi ody 
omor.) —- but, many deceivers, all those who do not confess, quicun- 
que non profitentur. 

8. when they apply to particular persons indeed, but ascribe to 
them a quality only conditionally or in thought: Luke xi. 24 
Oray ... €EENOn ... SuépyeTar Ov avvdpwv ToT@V GyTObV avaTravoW, 

Kal py evpicKoy réyer if he finds it not, in case he does not etc., Rom. 
ii. 14; Gal. vi. 9 Oepicouev purty exdXvomevot, Luke xil. 47 éxeivos 6 
doddos (vs. 45 f.) 6 pur) Erousdoas pundé Troujoas mpos TO PéAnwa Sapij- 499 
cera (this is propounded as one of two possible cases); 1 Cor. bib od. 
xX. 33 TavTa Tao apécKw, 1) (YT@V TO E“avTod cupdépov I seek to 
please all, (supposition) as one who, inasmuch as I etc., ix. 21; 

2 Cor. vi. 8; Rom. xv. 23; 1 Thess. ili. 1, 5 (against Rickert see 
Liinemann in loc.); Jno. vil. 15 was obTos ypappata oide pr) 
pepalhkes ; since he can’t have learned (since we, surely, know 
him to be such a one as has never learned ? cf. Philostr. Apoll. 

3, 22 03 Kal ypader pu) wabov ypawpata). Luke vii. 33 édjrvdev 
"Iwdvyys unre €cOiwv dptov pnte Tivev oivoy without having eaten ... 
drunken (spoken from the position of those who, observing this, 
are introduced as saying so); ovTe éoOiwy ove tivwv Would express 

the predicates as pure matters of fact. In Luke iv. 35 70 déaypomov 
eEnOev an’ adtod yndev Brdvav avrov, by the last words the author 
does not mean to relate a mere matter of fact (ovdé&y Bray. avtov 
and did not harm him), but to exclude merely the thought that 

the evil spirit had in any way injured the possessed: he had not 

(as one might perhaps have thought) injured him. 

Thus pis very often to be understood: Acts v. 7; xx. 22; 
Heb. iv. 15; xi. 8; Matt. xxii. 12. Cf. what: Klotz says, Devar. 

p. 666: quibus in locis omnibus propterea yj positum est, non ov, 


430 
6th ed. 


484 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


quod ille, qui loquitur, non rem ipsam spectat sed potius cogita- 
tionem rei, quam vult ex animo audientis amovere (Plut. Pompej. 
c. 64); Hm. Vig. 806. In Matt. xviii. 25 yu) Eyovtos avtod amo- 
Sodvat exéXevoev avTov Oo KUpLos avTOD mpabjvar etc. the first words 
express a fact, indeed, as he had not; but in this construction they 
are put in close relation with éxéX.: he commanded, because that 
man had not, because he knew that the man had not, etc. So 
also Acts xxi. 834; Luke ii. 45; xxiv. 23; Acts ix. 26; xii 28% 
xvii. 6; xxvii. 7, 20; 1 Pet. iv. 4; 2 Pet. iii. 9; cf. Plut. Pompej. 
c. 23 and Alex. 51; Polyb. 17, 7,5; 5,80,5. On Rom. ix. 11 see 
Fr. Acts xx. 29 oida 6tt eiceXedoovTar ... AVKOL Papeis Eis Dmas, 
py pevdomevor Tov Trovpyiov is, as the Future shows, to be taken 
altogether as an ideal picture. Also Heb. ix. 9 px) duvdpevas Kata 
cuvelonow TéedeLdoat etc. is spoken in the view of the writer; had 
it been ov dvvay. an actual inherent property would have been 
signified (not being able), but such offerings Israelites would not 
have presented. 1 Cor. i. 28 é&AéEato 0 Geos TA wy OVTA, Wa Ta 
év7a Katapynon, Where Ta ovK dv7a would signify (Hm. Vig. 889) 
the non-existing (as a single negative idea), but ta ua dvTa must 
mean which were reckoned as things that did not exist ; the dvta is 
negatived as a supposition, not spoken actually of nonentities1 In 
2 Cor. iv. 18 (even in the second proposition, which is categorical) 
to Ta Pre7romeva stands opposed Ta py BAer., not Ta ov rer. 
(Heb. xi. 1). This last would denote what actually is not seen 
(Ta aopata), but ta px) Prez. expresses, in conjunction with pz 
cKxoToUvTwr nuov, the subjective view of the believer, cf. Heb. xi. 7. 
Also in 2 Cor. v. 21 tov pu) yvovta dpaptiav tirép uav amapTiav 
évroinae, the uz. yv. carries us back to the conception of him who 
makes him dpuaprtia; tov od yvovta would be objective and equiva- 
lent to tov ayvoodvta,? Isae. 1,11 and Schoem.in loc. 2 Cor. vi. 3 
does not read ovdeuiay év oddevt duddvTes TposKomynv, because this 
would exhibit merely an actually existing characteristic, but 
pnoeuiav év pndevt 86. mp. because the characteristic is regarded, 
in connection with mrapaxadotuev vs. 1, as subjectively adhered 
to and continually striven after. Cf. besides, Luke vii. 30; Jno. 
vii. 49; 1 Cor. ix. 20f. So with és in subjective speech, 1 Cor. 
iv. 7 Ti Kavyaoa ws 7) AaBev; iv.18; vii. 29; 2 Cor.x.14; 1 Pet. 
ii. 16; Gayler 278 sq. (otherwise 1 Cor. ix. 26, see below). 


1 M} dvta and ov« bvra are united in Xen. An. 4, 4, 15. 

2 The remark of Riickert on this passage, that in Greek od never stands between the 
article and participle but always mw, is wholly empirical, and false besides, and has been 
properly refuted by Mey. 


§ 55, NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 485 


On the other hand, od with participles (and adjectives) -— with 

which it occurs far less frequently — negatives actually and with- 
out qualification (Gayl. 287 sq.; Mtth. 1442), and hence stands 
especially with predicates which are denied of definite persons: ! 
Phil. iii. 8 swets oper 7) mrepitopn, of mvevpate Oed NaTpevorTes ... 452 
kal ovx év capi Trerodres (the eis, since they actually are Met 
mvevp. Oew@ atp., are denied to be év capxi wemootes) ; 1 Pet. 
ii. 10 tyets ... of odK erenpuévot, viv 5é édenOévtes, Rom. ix. 25 
(LXX.); Heb. xi. 35 €\aBov yuvaines ... dddov O€ EruutravicOncav 
ov mposdeEdpuevot THY aTroNUTpwaw (not accepting, i.e. disdaining) ; 
Col. ii. 19 elk huctovmevos ... Kal ov xpatav, although the sen- 
tence is imperative (vs. 18 wndets buds KataBpaPevérw and & f») 
éwpaxer etc.), yet with ov xpar. the apostle passes over to a pred- 
icate actually existing, Acts xvii. 27; Luke vi. 42; 1 Cor. ix. 26 
€y® oUTW TUKTEVW, WS OUK aépa Sépwy (OvK aépa Sép. a concrete 
predicate which Paul attributes to himself, ws is qualitative; as uy 
a. 6. would be as if I would not beat the air), Gal. iv. 27 (LXX) 
evppavOnte atetpa 1) ov riktovea ete. thou that bearest not! of a 
historic person; see besides 1 Cor. iv. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 8f.; Acts 
xxvi. 22; xxviii. 17; Heb. xi. 1, (adjectives with od Rom. viii. 20; 
Heb. ix. 11); cf. Xen. Cyr. 8, 8, 6; Her. 9, 83; Plato, Phaed. 
80 e.; Demosth. Zenothem. p. 576b.; Strabo 17, 796 and 822; 
Diod. 8. 19, 97; Philostr. Apol. 7,82; Aelian. 10,11; Lucian. 
Philops. 5; peregr. 54. 

In 1 Pet. i. 8 both the negatives are used together: ov ovx 
ELOOTES WYATATE, ELS OV APTL 41) Opa@VTES TLaTEvoVTES SE ayaNNLacbe 
etc.; the ov« eid. expresses the negative idea (personally) un- 
known as a matter of fact; the su) op. means, although ye see not, 
referring to the conception of the persons addressed: believing, 
ye rejoice in him, and the thought that ye see him not does not 
restrain you from rejoicing. (In like manner ov and py are con- 
strued with participles in one and the same sentence in Lucian. 
indoct. 5 Kat o KuBepvay ovK elda@s Kal immevew joi) mEmedEeTNKOS 
ete., ef. also Lycurg. 11, 9 and Blume in loc.). In Rom. i. 28 484 
we find mapédwxev adtovs 6 Beds els addKysov vodv, TroLety TA (1) he 
caOnkovTa, but in Eph. v. 3f. wopvela nal waca axabapola... 


' The difference between od and wf with participles is well illustrated by Plat. Phaed. 
63b. Hdtkovy by obk Gyavaxray injuste facerem ego, qui non indignor; on the other 
hand, 75. av wh ayav. (according to Olympiod.) injuste facerem si non indignarer. 
Cf. also Joseph. antt. 16, 7,56 8& Sepdpas els wéoov awrelAntro, undev evoxnuoy els 
amodoylay Exwv ... akovoa 8 ov morevduevos. ‘ 


508 


453 
7th ed. 


486 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


Lncé dvopakécbw ev tiv... evtpatenia, Ta oVK avynKoVTAa. The 
latter (in apposition) is to be resolved, which are unseemly 
things (which a Christian is bound to shun), actions which are not 
seemly (as indeed some Codd. [so too Cod. Sin.] have: @ ov« 
avynkev). Gal. iv. 8 tote odK« eldores Oeov edovrEvcaTe etc. is a 
glance at a past historic fact, and ov« e6. form a single idea: 
ignorantes deum, a0eor; on the contrary, 1 Thess. iv. 5 ra éOvn 
Ta pn elooTa Tov Oedv, and 2 Thess. i. 8 Tots px eidoou Oeov, in 
dependent construction. 


Sometimes, however, jj would appear to stand for o, but Rom. iv. 19 
Kal p42) Goevnoas TH TioTEL Ov KaTEVONoE TO éavToD copa etc. means, he 
regarded not his body, quippe qui non esset imbecillis ; xarevonoe expresses 
a fact, but the being weak in faith only a supposition, which is to be denied 
(otk doGevycas would mean, strong in faith). According to another con- 
struction, it might, indeed, also have run thus: ov« 7nobeycer... dste 
Katavonoa. etc., cf. Plut. reg. apophth. p. 81 Tauchn. On the other hand, 
Heb. vii. 6 6 d€ py yeveadoyovjevos e& avTov dedexatwxe Tov “ABpaap is 
probably to be explained on the principle, that in antitheses (cf. vs. 5), 
where a peculiarly strong negation is intended (and the negative is ac- 
cented), the Greeks use py (by which even the supposition is denied). 
See above, no. 1 and Hm. Soph. Antig, 691, which will be quoted presently. 
In Luke i. 20 éoy ow7dv Kai pn dvvdwevos AaAjoat the subjective negation 
is so much the more fitting, as a particular condition is designated as but 
just announced, and consequently existing but in thought (ec). So also 
Acts xiii. 11. The connection of the subjective and objective negatives 
appears strangest in Acts ix. 9 jv npépas tpets or BA€rwv Kal otk epayev 
ovde éxcev (cf. Epiphan. Opp. I. 368 etc. jv 6&6 Bacwels py Suvadpevos 
AaAjoa). But here the not eating and not drinking are related as matters. 
of fact; whereas the PAéray, which from vs. 8 one might have supposed 
to be returning, is as a supposition denied antithetically. The remark of 
Tim. Soph. Antig. 691 is applicable here: jp fortius est, quia ad oppositum 
refertur : nam ov« éav simpliciter est prohibere, wn éav autem dicitur, quum, 
quem credas siturum, non sinit. Accordingly 0d PAérwv there would have 
meant blind outright; ji) BAézwv affirms not see’ng of one who had had 
his sight and might be supposed to have it again. Cf. also Jno. vii. 49 6 
OxAos OUTOS, 6 pi) ywdoKwv Tov Vopov, Where the oyAos is denied an attribute 
which it could and should have had; pi ywoox. conveys a censure, ob 
ywoox. would be a simple predicate: unacquainted with the law. See 
besides, Luke xiii. 11; Mark v. 26; Acts ix. 7 (cf. vs. 3). 

Although, then, it may be quite true as Schaef. says, Demosth. ITI. 495: 
in scriptis cadentis graecitatis vix credas, quoties participialis constructio 
(especially that of the Genit. absol.) non od etc., ut oportebat, sed pur ete. 
adsciscat, cf. also Plut. V.6; Thilo, Acta ‘Thom. p. 28, and above, p. 4738 


§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 487 


note 2, yet it is indispensable to scrutinize sharply every passage even from 


the writers of the xowy, before asserting that py stands for od (Fr. Rom. 432 
II. 295); in particular, as has been already remarked, it should not be ‘th ed. 


overlooked that often much depends, especially in the construction of 
negatives with participles, on the mode in which the author conceives of 


his subject, Hm. Vig. 804, 806; Mtth. 1437,1441. On the general subject 509 


cf. also Jacobs, Anthol. pal. III. 244; Bihr in Creuzer, Melet. III. 20; 
Schaef. Eurip. Med. 811 ed. Porson.! 


6. Continued negation is, as is well known, expressed by the 454 


compound negatives ovdé, wndé, and ovte, pjte.2 The difference 
between the two words has often been discussed in modern phi- 
lology, but has not yet been developed in all its relations and with 
complete unanimity ; see especially Hm. Hurip. Med. 330 sqq. 
(also in his Opuse. III. 143 sqq.) and ad Philoctet. p. 140, then 
Franke, comm. II. 5 sqq. ; Wex, Antig. II. 156 sqq.; Klotz, Devar. 
II. 706 sqq.3 

Undoubtedly ovdé and ore run parallel with the conjunctions 
dé and re, and must be explained primarily from their meaning ; 
accordingly we may say with Herm. that ovre, ure are adjunctive, 
ovoé, dé disjunctive (dé is properly but, and denotes an opposi- 
tion, Franke II. 5), i.e. the latter add negation to negation, the 
former divide a single negation into parts (which last of course 
are mutually exclusive). For instance, Matt. vii. G 42) dd7€ 7d 
drytov Tois Kuali, wndé BarnTE Tovs papyapitas etc. give not — and 
cast not (two different actions are equally denied, i.e. interdicted) ; 
Matt. vi. 26 ov otre(povow ovdé Oepifovcw ovdé cuvayovow etc. 
they sow not, and they reap not, and they gather not. On the other 


1 On Aelian. 3, 26 5¢ wndév diatrapaxdels eimev, 14, 33 ds ovdEv SiarapaxOels elmer, 
see Fr. Rom. II. 295. Elsewhere od is taken for wy with particip. sometimes in Plut., 
see Held, Plutarch. Tim. p. 457 sq., also in Aelian, see Jacobs, Aelian. anim. II. 187. 
In like manner ov seems to me to stand for wf in Basilic. I. 150 maldwy ob x brdvTwy st 
Jilii non exstant. As it stands it means, since children are not in existence. (Polyb. 7, 9, 
12 trav Ocay od BdvTwy byiy Kad juiy which Gayler quotes, p. 591, is merely a conjectural 
reading of Casaubon.) In Lucian. saltat. 75, on the contrary, the transition from ute 
into odre is owing to an anacoluthon. Lastly, od and wf are differently construed with 
participles in Aelian. anim. 5, 28; see Jacobs in loc. . 

2 Where ovd¢ does not refer to a preceding negation, it denotes, as is well known, 
also not, or not even (Klotz, Devar. 707). On the latter meaning see Franke II. 11. 

8 Cf. Hand, de partic. re dissert. 2 p. 9 sqq.; Engelhardt, Plat. Lach. p. 69 sq. ; Stallb. 
Plat. Lach. p. 65, also Jen. Lit.-Zeit. 1812. no. 194 S. 516 and Hartung, Partik. I. 191 ff. 

* Benfey in the new Jahrb. f. Philol. XII. 155: “As re... 7 connects only ideas or 
propositions which are mutually complementary and combine into one whole, so ode... 
ovre can connect only such. This higher unity or complex whole is divided by the 
negatived complementary parts; in these neither the negation of the one nor of the 
other is a whole, but each must be supplemented.” 


Tth ed. 


433 


6th ed, 


510 


455 
Tth ed. 


488 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


hand, Matt. xii. 82 ovK adeOjoetar avT@ ovTE ev TOUTM TO aidvt 
ovTe év TO péAXovTe forgiveness will not be imparted, neither in this 
world, nov in that which is to come (the single negation ov« aed. 
is distributed into two parts on the basis of time); Luke ix. 3 
pndev aipete els THY OOov pHATE PaBdovy mHTE THpay MWHTE apTOV 
[LNT € apyupLov. 

In this acceptation, then, the following particles are usually 
correlative : | 

a. Ov... ovdé Matt. vi. 28; vii. 18; Luke vi. 44; Jno. xiii. 163 
xiv. 17; Acts ix.9; Rom. ii. 28, wy... wndé Matt. vi. 25; x. 14; 
xxii. 9f.; Mark xiii. 15 ; Luke xvii. 23; Jno. iv. 15; Actsiy. 18% 
Rom. vi. 12f.; 2 Cor.iv.2; 1Tim.i.38f., od... ovdé ... ovdé Matt. 
xii. 19; Jno. 1. 18, 25,1 uy... pndé... pndé Rom. xiv. 21; Col: 
li. 2 ukertveel ot 0b sOT OT) © 

b. Od... odTe... ore Matt. xii. 32, uw... unre ... wnte 1 Tim. 
i. T, wy... pyre... pyre... pyre Jas. v. 12 (unre three times), 
Matt. v. 34 ff. (ure four times) not... neither... nor etc.; but 
still more frequently without a simple negation preceding, Jno. 
v.37 ov Te hwvyy avTov aknKoaTEe THTOTE OUTE ELS AVTOU EwpaKaTe, 
Matt. vi. 20; xxii. 30; Luke xiv. 35; Jno. vii. 19 ; 1x3 age 
xv. 10; 1 Thess. it. 5 f.; Rom. viii. 88 (ten times), Matt. xi. 18 
MAVe Iwavyns wynte eoOliov unre wivov, Acts xxvii. 20; Heb. vii. 3? 
neither ... nor etc. Accordingly, ovre and pre regularly refer to 
another ovte and pte (or te or kal) *—just as Te... Te (TE... 
kat) correspond to each other ; but ovdé and pydé connect them- 
selves with a preceding ov or pa, as in fact 6é always refers 
to something that precedes. Hence it may be laid down as a 
principle (resulting from the respective import of ve and 6é), 
that ovre ... ovre denote a more intimate connection than ov... 
ovdé. Klotz, Devar. T07 sq.4 In this correlation, however, it is a 


1 In Judges i. 27 we find od followed by ovdé fourteen times. 

21 Cor. vi. 10 ore... ofre... otre... ore... ofre... ore... oe... ote... 
ov... ov etc. is remarkable only for the accumulation of negatives. For that there 
is nothing singular in od coming after o¥re, even though it be not supported by the 
passage quoted by Gayl. 386 from Soph. Antig. 4f., cf. (Dio C. 205, 6; 412, 59) Klotz 
l.c. 711. See also no. 9 below, p. 500. 

3 As to a single whre with the suppression of the other, see Hm. Soph. Philoct. 
p- 139 sq. and in general, Franke II. 13 sq. 

4 Cum ode et ad priora respicere possit et ad sequentia, aptior connexio est singulorum 
membrorum per eas particulas, multo autem dissolutior et fortuita magis conjunctio 
membrorum per 0vd¢ .. . ovdé particulas, quia prius ovdé€ nunquam respicit ad ea quae 
sequuntur sed ad priora... alterum autem odd¢ per aliquam oppositionis rationem, 
quam habet d¢ particula, sequentia adjungit prioribus, non apte connexa, sed potius 
fortuito concursu accedentia. On this account, however, 65¢ is still stronger than Te. 
Franke II. 6, 15. . i 


§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 489 


matter of indifference whether the things denied are individual 
words (conceptions) merely, or entire sentences; and entire sen- 
tences are with as much propriety rendered negative by ovre... 
o’re Acts xxviii. 21 (Plato, rep. 10, 597 c.; Phaedr. 260c.), as 
individual words are by ov ... ovdé.1 In the latter case, it is true, 

the verb serves for all the negative members. Matt. x. 9 ma 511 
KTnonobe ypucov pndé apyupov pndé yarxov, 2 Pet. i. 8 ovK apryouvs 
ovdé axdprous KaSlornow etc., Matt. xxii. 29; xxiv. 20; xxv. 13; 

1 Jno. iii. 18. In Matt. x. 9 the other form of negation might 
have been employed, if the evangelist had said pmdév xtjo. pre 
xpuoov pnte apy. etc., cf. Franke II. 8. Further, Matt. vi. 20, and 434 
Matt. x. 9 compared with Luke ix. 8, throw especial light on the Sth ed. 
distinction between ovd€é and ovre. 


The succession ovre ... ovre... kal ov Jno. v. 37 f.,.as the interpretation 
which has latterly become usual connects the clauses, would be no more 
liable to grammatical objection than ovre ... te ob Hm. Soph. Antig. 759 ; 
Poppo, Thue. III. I. p. 68; yet the clause with xaé... od does not sustain 
quite the same relation as if ovre were employed. I consider it, therefore, 

preferable not to comprehend xaé... od in the partition. * See Mey. in loc. 


From what has been said it follows further, 

a) ovdé... ovdd, pndé ... wdé, in the sense of neither... nor 
(when a single negation does not precede), cannot be correlative 456 
(on Thue. 1, 142 see Poppo in loc., and on Xen. Anab. 3, 1, 27 Th ed. 
the same author’s Index to the Anab. p. 535); but where one 
negation is annexed to another, or where a series of negations 
occurs, the first is expressed by ov or w7, and only in this way is 
a foundation laid for the antithetical disjunctive 6é.2. Mark viii. 26 
Néyov, Noe Els THY KOuNV ElséAOns NSE elayns Twi etc. cannot 
signify neque ... neque; but the first wndé denotes ne... quidem, 
and the second also not (nor), see Mey. in loc. Cf. EKurip. Hippol. 
1052 and Klotz, Devar. 708. The case is different when the first 
ovdé connects the clause to what. precedes, as e.g. in the case of 
ovdé yap in Gal. i. 12 ovSdE yap éyo mapa avOp. mapéraBov avro 
ovdé €d1ddxOnv, yet on this passage see below, p. 492. 

b) as ovre and pyre always introduce co-ordinate members of a 
partition, wyre is incongruous in Mark iii. 20 @ste un ddvacPa 
nTe aptov dayety,? for uy pay. here is dependent on dvvacOa. 


1 Hence Mith. 1444 does not express himself with accuracy. 
2 On ovd€ and un dé after an affirmative sentence, see Engelhardt, Plat. Lach. p. 64 sq. ; 
Franke, p. 6, 8 sq. 2 
8 That even in the latest edition of Griesbach’s N. T. wjre should remain unchanged, 
62 


490 § 55, NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


As the text now stands it can only mean: that they neither had 
512 power, nor ate (the first 4» being used for pate). The sense, 
however, obviously is: that they were not able(not) even [so much 
as| to eat; accordingly, wndé must be restored on the authority of 
the better Codd. (see Fr. in loc.), which has been done by Lchm. 
and Tdf., but not by Scholz. In the same way we must read in 
Mark vy. 8 ovdé advoet, in Luke xii. 26 ovdé edayvotov dvvacGe, in 
vil. 9 ovdé €v TH "Icpayd,} and in Luke xx. 86, where ovdé yap 
amo@avety Ere SUvavTat (as good Codd. read) is not parallel to the 
preceding sentence ovre ... ovre, but the confirmation of it: neque 
435 enim? Cf. also Matt. v. 36. In these passages also Scholz re- 
shel. brinted the old mistakes. 

C) as ovre... ovre introduce negative members of a partition, 
and these mutually exclude each other (Hm. Med. p. 332), the 
reading of some Codd. [Sin. also] ove oida ob Te érrictayar (which 
Lehm. and Tdf. [2d ed., not so Tth] have received into the text) 
in Mark xiv. 68 cannot be supported: neque novi neque scio can 
hardly be said,— the verbs being nearly identical in sense. Cf. 
Franke IJ. 13; Schaef. Demosth. II]. 449; Fr. inloe. Griesb. has 

A57 received into the text ov« oida ovdé érrictamar; cf. Cic. Rose. Am. 48 
ithe non (not neque) novi neque scio, which according to the mean- 
ing of the two verbs is very suitable.® 

d) ovre may indeed follow ov, so far forth as ov as respects sense 
is to be taken for ovre, see Hm. as above, p. 333 sqq. 401 and Soph. 
Antig. p. 110, in opposition to Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 4, 5 and Soph. 
Oed. T. 817; cf. Franke I. 27 sq.; Maetzner, Antiphon p. 195 sq. ; 
Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. Il. 444; Klotz, as above, 709 sq. Accord- 


is remarkable. What is still more strange, however, is, that Grriesbach and Schulz have 
not even noted the var. undé given by approved Codd. See, on the other hand, Scholz 
in loc. 

1 On the same ground ov5¢ should be printed also in Act. apocr. p.168. Yet Déder- 
lein, Progr. de brachylogia serm. gr. p. 17, considers ore correct in such case, maintain- 
ing that inasmuch as te like cal may denote etiam this negation also may be used in 
the sense of ne quidem. See in opposition Franke II. 11. 

2 Bornem. insists on construing o¥re with the following kal (see no. 7 below, p. 494); 
but the clause «al viol etc. goes with iodyyeror yap. 

3 When ore ... ove is used, it is true “the two notions are regarded as forming 
one compound thought” (J/ey.) ; but this supposes that there actually are two notions, 
which may be connected affirmatively by as well... as. 

4 «<Tn rare cases, and in virtue of a rhetorical figure, it is allowable to drop the com- 
plementary particle of the one ov, and so impart to the member thus stripped of its 
complementary symbol greater apparent independence, and consequently greater 
rhetorical force ; just as we may say in poetry Not father nor mother, instead of Neither 
father nor mother,” ete. Benfey, as above, 155. Cf. Hm. 1.c. 333, 401 and Franke (who 
differs somewhat) II. 27, (also Déderlein, Progr. de brachylogia p. 6). 


§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 491 


ingly, odre! in Rey. ix. 21 is unassailable, Mtth. 1448 ; though the 
usage in question passes as poetical, Franke I. 28. The same 
correlation is to be recognized in Rey. v. 4 ovdels d&os evpéOn 
avoitat TO PiBXiov ovTEe BrErrew avTo (as Tdf. also reads), cf. Klotz, 
Devar. I. 709 sq. and the passage adduced there from Aristot. 
polit. 1, 3, though the writer might also have said: ovdels aé. 
eupéOn ovte avoigar 76 BiBdlov ote BX. But py... wyre cannot 
be tolerated in Hph. iv. 27, where the best MSS. [also Sin.] unite 
in giving pydé, which Lchm. has admitted into the text. This 
usage is a sort of anacoluthon; in employing ov the writer had 
not yet the subsequent parallel member in view. Sometimes it 
may even have been adcpied purposely, in order to give promi- 
nence to the first word. In Rey. xii. 8 also ovdé appears to me 
the more correct expression, and it has been adopted by Knapp. 
On the other hand, in Jno.i. 25 ef avd ovk ef 0 Xpictos ov Te ’HXias 
ovte O Tpodyrns linguistic propriety does not require that oddé 
should be employed (cf. Hm. Soph. Philoct. p. 140), yet the better 


5 


13 


Codd. [Sin.also] give it. Likewise in Rey. v.3 ovdels ndvvato év TO 436 
obpave ovee er Ths yijs, oVdSé brroKaTw THs yis avotEat TO BiBNiov Mth od 


ovde PAéTeW avo the relation of the negations is appropriate : 
no one... nor on the earth, nor ... to open... nor (not even) to 
look upon it. 

e) as to ove (several times) ... ovdé Acts xxiv. 12 f. according 
to Lehm. and Bornem. from Codd. B [and Sin.] see Hm. Soph. Oed. 
C. 229; Franke I. 14 sqq.; Klotz, Devar. Il. 714. The ovéé is 
not correlative to ovre, but commences a new sentence: they 
neither found me in the temple ... nor in the synagogues, ... nor 


can they (and they can not) etc. Most of the Codd., however, 458 
give ovre vs. 13. Then ovte... eipov pe... ote Tapactheas ith ed. 


dvvavtas are regular correlates, and to the first proposition belong 
ovTe €v Tals GuVaywyais OUTE KaTa TOW as Subordinate members. 


On Luke xx. 36, see p. 490. 


_ That in negative sentences the subordinate members are introduced by 

», has already been stated, § 53, 6. On the other hand, in Acts xvii. 29, 
according to the reading (adopted by Bornem.) of Cod. D otk ddeiAopev 
vopiley ovTE xpvod 7) dpyv’py etc., the 7 is co-ordinate with ove, a usage 
of which another example could hardly be found, Mtth. Eurip. VII. 178. 


100 petevdnoay ex Tov pévev adtav, ot te ee TGV... 0UTE CK THS...0UTE eK TOV 
etc. (instead of the regular od perev. odre ex trav pdvwy ove etc.) is as allowable as 
Odyss. 9, 136 ff. W” od yxpew meicuards eoriv, oF 7’ edvas Bare, oF TE Mpuurhor avdat, 
or Odyss. 4, 566, see Alotz, Devar. 710. A var. in Rev. as above has not been noted. 


514 


492 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


However, as re... 7 is used (Klotz, Devar. II. 742 sq.), ovre... 7 may 
also be allowable. But the other authorities omit ovre in this passage. 


It is more difficult to say whether or not pte, ovre can be 
used after wndé, ovdé. Almost all recent philologists decide in the 
negative, see Mtth. II. 1446 (Engelhardt, as above, p. 70; Leh- 
mann, Lucian. III. 615 sq.; Franke I. 18, and others), on the 
ground that when the stronger expression ovdé (Mtth. 1444, 1446) 
precedes, the weaker ovre cannot follow, cf. also Fr. Mr. p. 158.1 
Yet in the various editions of Greek authors there occur many 
passages in which ovdé is followed by an ovre (Thuc. 3, 48; see 
Poppo in loe. ; Lucian. dial. mort. 26,2; catapl. 15; Plat. Charm. 
171i b.; Afistot. physiogn. 6, p. 148 Franz) ; they are usually 
emended, however, commonly with more or less MS. authority. 
That ovre and pyre cannot be strictly parallel with ovdé and pndé, 
may hold asa general rule (though the reason alleged does not 
appear to me decisive) ; yet, when these particles have nothing to 
do with ovdé (or pndé) as a conjunction, ovTe (unre) may follow 
ovdé (udé) in the two following cases (cf. also Déderlein in Pas- 
sow’s Lexicon under ov6é) : 

a) When ovdé means ne... quidem (Klotz, Devar. 711; ef. 


2 Macc. v. 10) or neither (also not), or connects the negative 


“aat 
6th ed. 


459 


Tih ed. 


clause to which d€ points with a preceding clause.2 In Gal. i. 12 
ovoé yap eyo... TapéXaPov avTd ovTE edvddyOnv the common 
reading is to be retained, if the passage is rendered: for neither 
did I receive it, — nor was I taught it, or neque enim ego (for ov 
yap) accept didicique (-ve), cf. Hoogeveen, doctr. particul. I. 
980 sq. See Plat. Charm. 171 b.; Hom. in Cerer. 22 (Hm. emend. 
p- 89); Lysias orat. 19 p. 157 Steph. The ovdé of good Codd. 
[even Sin.] for ore is probably a correction. 

b) When the otre (ute) following ovdé (yundé) is not co-ordinate 
with the latter, but is subordinate to it, e.g. I harbor no enmity 
and I do not counterwork the plans of others nor their undertakings, 
Xen. Mem. 2, 2,11 py& ErecOar pndé weiOecCar pte otparnye 
pre AAW apyovte (where, however, the first two words are suspi- — 
cious), Cyrop. 8, 7, 22 por’ aceBes pndev pundé avociov pyre 
Toumaonte pnte Povrevonte, Plato, legg. 11, 916e. The negation 


1 Odre after odd€ is upheld by Bornem. Xen. A. p. 26; Hand, as above, p. 18. 

2 Hand, as above: intelligitur, nexum, quem nonnulli grammatici inter ovdé et ote 
intercedere dixerunt, nullum esse, nisi quod od in voc. ovdé cum ovre cohaereat. .Nam 
si in aliquibus Hom. locis ista voce. hoc quidem ordine nexa videntur exhiberi, in iis 
dé pertinet ad superiora conjungenda. Cf. Hartung I. 201; Klotz p. 711.. 


§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 493 


pndé is here divided into two members (pte... wnte) Dem. 
Callipp. 718 c¢.; Judith viii. 18; cf Held, Plut. Timol. p. 433 sq. ; 
Mtth. 1445; Kiihner Il. 440. Accordingly Acts xxiii. 8 w7 etvar 
avaotacw, noe ayyedov (mde eivar ponte ayy.) wHnTE TVEvWA 
would be admissible, and would find additional support in ra 
apporepa immediately following. Tdf. has so printed the text 
in his 2d [and 7th] Leipsic edition. The sentence would be sim- 
pler, indeed, with udé mwv., or, as the better Codd. [Sin. also] 
have it, ute ayy. wjte mv.; and this last has been preferred by 
Lehm. and Bornem. The more usual reading, however, might 
easily have been introduced as a correction for the more unusual. 
In 1 Thess. ii. 8, owing to the notions connected, ov« €« mwAavns 
ovee €& axabapoias ovdé év Sodkm appears to me more suitable 
(the better Codd. too [Sin. also] have this reading, and Lchm. has 
so printed) ; and in general, I think that in ¢hzs case accurate 
writers would for the sake of perspicuity use 7 instead of ovve, 
see § 55, 6, p. 440 sq. 

In 1 Cor. iii. 2 the best Codd. [Sin. also], instead of the transcriber’s 
error ovre as in the received text, give GAN’ odd€ Er viv dvvacGe ne nunc 
quidem (cf. Acts xix. 2; Lucian. Hermot. 7; conser. hist. 33 and Fr. Mr. 
p- 157), so in 2 Thess. ii. 2 eis 70 ut) TaXEws GaArevOjvar ... NSE Opoeto bat 
pyre Oia mvevparos ete. (Lchm. and Tdf.). In 2 Thess. iii. 8 ovd€ is the 
only correct reading. In Luke vii.9; xii. 27; Acts xvi. 21 Griesb. prop- 
erly adopted ovdé, which should be adopted too in Acts iv. 12. In Jas. 
iii. 12 recent editors (Lchm. and Tdf. also) give ovre dAvKov yAvKd romjoat 
vdwp. ‘This reading can only be supported on the assumption that James 
had in mind as the antecedent member ovre dvvarar cuKp éAaias Toujoue 
etc. — harsh on any view it must be confessed —; otherwise we must read 
ovdé which some Codd. give. [So Cod. Sin. also, but with ovrws preceding. | 


515 


Passages like Luke x. 4 7) Baordere BadAavriov, wa mypav pyde tro- 438 
Oypara (not... nor... neither), Matt. x. 9 pi) Kryonobe xpvodv pn dé Mth od. 


dpyvpov nde yxadkov eis Tas Covas dpadv, 7 THpav eis ddov, NSE vO 
X'rovas, wn SE jrodjpara. etc., present nothing that is singular. 


It may be incidentally remarked further, that the distinction between 460 
ovd€, pndé, and Kat ov, Kat xy, which is explained by Engelhardt, Plat. Lach. ith ed, 


p- 65, and still more aptly by Franke II. 8 sq. (kat ov, cat uy after affirma- 
tive sentences and not, yet not, et non, ac non), as it appears to have a 


1 See Hoogeveen, doctr. particul. I. 751. Kiihndél insists on rendering Ta dupdrepa tria 
asta, but by no means vindicates that rendering by Odyss. 15, 78 dupdrepov Kvdds TE kad 
ayAain kal dverap, since the first two words here, united by te kal, are regarded as 
a single notion. In Acts, as above, were we to read undé, dupdrepa still could not mean 
tria; but the writer regards &yy. and mvedua, agreeably to their logical import, as one 
leading conception. 


494. § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


logical foundation, is observable likewise in the N. T., cf. cat od Jno. vy. 43; 
vi. 17; vii. 86; Acts xvi. 7; 2 Cor. xiii. 10, cat py Jas.i.5; iv.17; 1 Pet. 
ThahO.ch lil} ELeb. a. ee 
516 — For passages in Greek authors which especially illustrate the difference 
between ovdé and ovre, see Isocr. Areop. p. 845 od es ovOe aTaKTWS 
ove Cepdrevov odre wpylacov ete., pe p. 700 adste pndéva or twmote 
pnd év ddvyapxia. pwnd év Snuoxparia pyre UBpw pHre dduciay eyKahera, 
iler. 6, 9 ; Isocr. ep. 8, p. 1016; Xen. Ages. 1,4; Demosth. Timocr. 481 b. 
Cf. Mtth. p. 1445. 


7. In two parallel propositions, sometimes ore (ure) is fol- 
lowed, not by another negative, but by a simple copula («ad or 
ve), e.g. Jno. iv. 11 obte avTAgpa éxews, Kal TO ppéap eotl Bald, 
as In Latin nec haustrum habes et puteus etc. (Hand, Tursell. IV. 

33 sqq.), 3 Jno. 10, ef. Arrian. Al. 4, 7, 6 eyo obte THY arya 
Tavtny Tiywwplay Bycoov érawd... kal trayOAvar ’AdéEavdpov 
Evudnue etc., Paus. 1, 6,5 Anuntpuos ote Tavtdtacw é€evoTHKEL 
TItorewal tis yopas, Kal Twas TOV AiyuTTTiov Noyncas SiéhOerper, 
Lucian. dial. mar. 14,1; Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 20 (ve is the more 
frequent, Jacobitz, Lucian. Tox. c. 25; Weber, Demosth. p. 402 sq.) 
see Hartung, Partik. I. 193; Klotz, Devar. p. 713, 740; Gotting. 
Anzeig. 1831, S. 1188. On the other hand, in Jas. iii. 14 the 
negation is omitted the second time, or rather affects also the 
annexed clause: «7 Kataxavyasbe Kal Webdecbe Kata THs adnOelas. 
So also in 2 Cor. xii. 21; Matt. xiii. 15; Mark iv. 12; Jno. xii. 40; 
Acts xxvii. 27; cf. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 2, 20; Diod. S. 2, 48; 
Aclian. anim. 5, 21; Gataker, Advers. miscell. 2, 2, p. 268; Jacobs, 
Aclian. anim. IJ. 182; Boissonade, Nicet. p. 890. The converse 
construction many expositors have asserted is found in Eph. iv. 26 
opyifecbe kat iy Gpaptavete for pa) dpy. Kat (uw) auapt. So in 
Greek authors (even prose) ovdé and ovre are frequently used in 
the second member of a sentence, and have to be supplied in 
the first, see Schaef. Bos, ellips. p. 777 ; Hm. Soph. Aj. 239, 616 ; 
Déderlein, brachylog. p. 5 sq.; Poppo, Thue. III. IV. 841. This 
construction, however, which would be extremely harsh for the 
prose of the N. T., is not necessary in the preceding passage 
(especially as it does not run pte apuapt.), see § 43, 2, p. 811 sq. 
On the other hand, in Luke xviii. 7, according to the accredited 
reading 0 Oeds ov pn Toujon THY éxdiknow TOV eKdEKT@V avTOD . 

439 kal waxkpoOupet ém avrois, especially if the latter verb means 
6th ed. delay, the negative particle would be omitted in the second clause, 
461 and merely the interrogative ~ num would have to be repeated. 
“el Bornem. in the siichs. bibl. Studien I. 69. 


§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 495 


Ovde ... dé Heb. ix. 12 hardly needs a remark, as ov... d€ is of so very 
frequent occurrence. 


8. It has frequently been laid down as a rule, that sentences 517 
which contain a single negation followed by ard (6é), or in which 
ov (u) forms an antithesis to a preceding affirmative sentence 
(Matt. ix. 13 Sept.; Heb. xiii. 9; Luke x. 20), are not always (as 
e.g. Mark v. 39 70 radtov ovk aTéGavey adra Kabevde, where the 
latter thought exactly overturns the first, Matt. ix.12; x. 54; 
xv. 11; 2 Cor. xiii. 7) to be understood as purely negative, but 
(in consequence of a construction which, though Hebraistic, occurs 
also in Greek prose) must be rendered: not so much... as (non 
tam... quam, ov tocodTov ... dcov Heliod. 10,3; Xen. Eph. 5, 11, 
avy ovTws ... ws Dio. Chr. 8, 130, od wadrov 7} Xen. Hell. 7,1, 2), 
or: not only ... but also, non solum ...sed etiam,! cf Blackwall, 
auct. class. sacr. p. 62; Glass. I. 418 sqq.; Wetst. and Kypke ad 
Matt. ix. 18; Heumann on 1 Cor. x. 23 f.; Kuinoel, Acta p. 177 ; 
Haab, Gr. 145 ff.; Bos, ellips. p. 772 sq., and others (Valcken. Opuse. 
Ii. 190; ad Dion. H. IV. 2121,10; Jacobs, Anthol. pal. III. p. lxix.) ; 
e.g. Acts v..4 ovK éetow avOpwrrois, adda Ged not so much to men 
(the apostle Peter), as to God ete.; 1 Cor. xv. 10 ov« éyo 6é 
(€xotrlaca), adr 1 xapis Tod Deod 7 ody euol, Augustine: non 
ego solus, sed gratia Det mecum (Jno. v.30) ;2 Luke x. 20 py 
vaipete OTL... xalpere S€ Ste etc. nolite tam propterea laetari. .. 
quam potius. 

But in the passages from the N. T. referred to this head, when 
more closely considered, either 


1 The first sense, non tam... quam, is the one by far most commonly assumed in 
the N. T., as the examples which follow show; and an apparent warrant for it might 
be found in the fact, that in N. T. Greek the relative negation non solum ... sed is fre- 
quently expressed, but non tam ... quam in point of fact never. 

2 No wonder expositors have been partial to such a weakening of the preceding idiom, 
since even philologists supposed it necessary to soften a strong expression in passages 
of the ancients where there was not the slightest occasion. Thus Dion. H. IV. 2111 
din 7d avdpetov emitndedwy ode dAnOeia is still translated by Reiske: te fortitudinis 
studiosum esse opinione magis quam re ipsa. For a similar impropriety, see Alberti, 
observ. p. 71. As to the misapprehension of Palairet (obs. p. 236) in reference to 
Macrob. Saturn. I, 22, see my grammatische Excurse §. 155. Cic. off. 2, 8, 27 also 
is easily disposed of according to the preceding remarks. Moreover, any one may see 
in Glass. as above, p. 421, how the older Biblical interpreters allowed themselves to be 
influenced even by doctrinal considerations in explaining this idiom. In 1 Pet. i. 12 
the weakening of ob ... 5€ into non tam... quam (see Schott even in the latest edition) 
arises from misunderstanding d:akovetv. Flatt in 1 Cor. vii. 4 wanted to have even the 
simple od restricted by a wévoy. On 1 Cor. ix. 9 the passage of Philo quoted by ex- 
positors throws sufficient light. 


496 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


440 a. an wnconditional negation is plainly intended, as may be 
the. gathered from a careful examination of the context: Matt. ix. 13 
462 cov Ow Kat od Ovciav, where Christ, using the words of the 
ith el, prophet (Hos. vi. 6), really wishes to have mercy (a state of heart) 
put in the place of sacrifices (mere symbols), cf. what follows: ov 
yap 7rAOov Karécat Sixalous, GAN adpaptwrovs ; Jno. vil. 16 4 eur 
dday7) oVK EoTW en, ANNA TOD TréurpayTos pe, Where Jesus speaks 
of the origin of his doctrine (vss. 15, 17,18): my doctrine (which 
ye consider mine, cf. vs. 15) belongs not to me, but to God, —has 
for its author not me, but God, (Christ calls it 7 éw2) 6.6. in refer- 
ence to the opinion of the Jews, who in the words 7s obTos ypap- 
Hata oide, un wewabnxods ; assumed it to be something agquired by 
means of study),! cf. Jno. v. 302; xii. 44; Jno. vi. 27 épyaveobe 
fe) THY Bphow Thy arorArupEevnv, GAA THY BpBcwW THY pévovEaY eis 
Cory aiov., iv 0 vids TOD avOp. tpiv docer, Where Jesus censures 
the conduct of the people who had come to him @s the Messiah, 
and the thottght: not so much for ordinary food as for heavenly 
(Kiihnél) would be absurd. As to vs. 26 see Liicke. In 1 Cor. 
vii. 10 Paul makes a distinction between the Lord’s, injunctions 
and his own, as he does in vs. 12, inverting the order ; for he 
alludes there to Christ’s declaration Matt. v. 52. Recent exposi- 
tors are right. As to 1 Cor. xiv. 22 cf. 23 no doubt can exist; 
cf. besides, 1 Cor. x. 24 (Schott) and Mey. in loc., Eph. vi. 12; 
Heb. xiii. 9; 1 Cor.i.17 and Mey. inloc. Likewise in 2 Cor. vii. 9 
Xaipw ovy OTe eduTIiOnTe GAN OTL ErAvTIOHTE eis peTavoray in the 
first clause AvarnOFvac is denied in itself (the thought so far as 
contained in Av779.) and absolutely, but to be taken up again in 
the second clause with an added limitation eis petavoray. So in 
non bonus sed optimus (see the note below), non cancels good (in 
the positive) (good he is not), in order straightway to put in its 
place the only correct term optimus, (which of course comprehends 

the bonus also). Or, 
b. in other passages, the absolute negation is on rhetorical 


1 Bengel: non est mea, non ullo modo discendi labore parta. 

2 Similar to this would be to say e.g. of a biblical expositor abounding in ancient 
quotations, Thy learning is not thy learning, but Wetstein’s. The first thy learning is put 
only problematically ; and to infer from it that the speaker means actually to ascribe 
to the party concerned (that) learning in some degree or in a certain respect, is an infer- 
ence purely grammatical not logical. Hm. Eurip. Alcest. p. 29 had already glanced at 
non bonus sed optimus (Fr. diss. in 2 Cor. II. p.162). Of a similar kind are the passages 
cited by Hewmann as above: Cic. Arch. 4, 8 se non interfuisse sed egisse, and Vell. 
Pat. 2, 13 vir non saeculi sui sed omnis aevi optimus. Cf. also 2 Cor. vii. 9. 


§ 55, NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 497 


erounds employed instead of a conditional (relative), not for the 
purpose of really (logically) cancelling the first conception, but in 


order to direct undivided attention to the second, so that the first 519 


may comparatively disappear (cf. Mey. on Acts v. 4): 1 Thess. 


iv. 8 (Schott) rejecteth not man, but God.1 Of course he rejects 463 
the apostle also, who announces the divine truth; but the inten- tthed. 


tion was to present to the mind with full force the fact, that it is 441 
properly God, as the real author of the truth announced, who is he 


rejected. The force of the thought is immediately impaired if 
rendered: he rejects not so much man as God. To give sucha 
translation would be like diluting e.g. an asyndeton (the nature 
of which also is rhetonical) by ‘subjoining a copula. ‘Therefore it 
appears to me that ove... adda, when it logically means non tam 
... quam, is always a part of the rhetorical coloring of the com- 
position, and for that reason is to be preserved in the translation 
(as is done by all good translators). The speaker has chosen this 
negative designedly, and the expression is not to be judged of 
grammatically merely. Whether, however, such is actually the 
case, is to be determined not according to the impressions of the 
interpreter, but by the context and the nature of the connected 
thoughts. In this way the following passages are to be treated: 
Matt. x. 20 (Schott) ody tpets éore of AaXodvTES, GANA TO TVEdpLA 
Tov Tatpos vyuov, Mark ix. 37 (Schott) Os dav éwé déEnrar, ovK ee 
déyeTar, GANA TOV amrocTeihavTa pe, 1 Cor. xv. 10 Tepico bTEpov 
AUTOY TAVTWY EKOT LATA’ OUK eyw é, CAN 7 YAapLS TOD DeEod 1) adv ewok, 
Jno. xii. 44 0 mictevmy els Ewe ov TlaTEvEr eis ewe, GAN Eis TOV 
méprpavta pe, Acts v. 4 (cf. Plutarch. apophth. Lac. 41; see Duker, 
Thuc. 4, 92); Luke x. 20 (where many MSS. insert a padrov 
after 38) ; 2 Cor.ii.5 (Schott). As to he xiv. 12 f. see Bornem. 
and de Wette in loc.? : 


1 Cf. Demosth. Euerg. 684 b. trynoauévn bBploba odn éwé (but he had been abused 
actually) GAN’? éauThy (Thy Bovdjy) kal roy Sipov thy Whpicduevoy etc., Aesop. 148, 2 
ov ov me AoLdopets, GAA’ 6 mvpyos, ev @ tcracm. Klotz, Devar. p. 9: ov« éxwvddvevoer, 
GAN €madey est: non periclitatus sed passus est, quibus verbis hoc significatur: non dico 
istum periclitatum esse sed passum, ita ut, cum ille dicatur passus esse, jam ne cogitetur 
quidem de eo, quod priori membro dictum est. 

2 Against this view, propounded in the first edition of this work in accordance with 
the remarks of de Wette (A. L.-Z.1816 nr. 41 §. 321) and those of a critic in the Theol. 
Annal. 1816 8. 873, Wr. dissert. in 2 Cor. II. 162 sq. declared himself. His objections 
were examined by Beyer in the n. krit. Journ. d. Theol. 3 B. 1 St.; but Fr. discussed 
the subject anew in his 2d excursus on Mr. p. 773 sq. I had written the above in sub- 
stance before I received this excursus, and it agrees essentially with the opinion expressed 
in the second edition of this Grammar §. 177, and in my grammat. Excurse S. 155. 

63 


th ed. 


520 


498 §55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


When (ov) py... dAAG Kad are correlative, as in Phil. ii. 4 py 7a éavrdy 
exacTos okoTovvTes, GAAG Kal Ta érépwv Exacros, the original plan. of the 


464 sentence intended od... dAAd, and xaé was introduced because the writer 


Tth ed. 


4492 
§th ed. 


cn reaching the second member determined to soften and qualify the 
thought. Passages of a similar sort are not unfrequent in Greek authors, 
see Fr. Exc. 2 ad Mr. p. 788; cf. Thuc. ed. Poppo III. III. 300, (on 
the Latin non... sed etiam or quoque, see Ramshorn S. 535 f.; Kritz, Vell. 
Pat. p. 157 f.). The converse is od piovov ... dAAa (without Kai, see Leh- 
mann, Lucian. I]. 551), when the writer drops povoy, and, instead of a 
thought parallel to the first, subjoins one that is stronger (which usually 
includes the former), see Stallb. Plat. symp. p. 115; Fr. as above, 786 ff. 
and Klotz, Devar. p. 9 sq. So Acts xix. 26 drt od povov “Edécov, ad\Aa 
axedov macys THs Aalas 6 IladAos otros reicas peréotycev ixavov dyAov that 
he not only at Ephesus, but in all Asia ete., where strict propriety required: 
but also in other places, cf. 1 Jno. v. 6 ob év 7@ Vdare pdvov, GAN ev TO 
voaTt Kat TO alwart. On the Lat. non solum (modo) ... sed, see Hand, 
Tursell. [V. 282 sqq.; Kritz, Sallust. Cat. p. 80. The second member is 
heightened in a different way in Phil. ii. 12; in 1 Tim. v. 23 pyxére tdpo- 
motel, GAN olvw 6ALyw xp@ is to be rendered, Be no longer a water-drinker 
(idpororety cf. Her. 1,71; Athen. 1.168), but use a little wine ; wdpororetv 
differs from tdwp zivew, and signifies to be a water-drinker i.e. to drink 
water usually and exclusively. One who uses a little wine ceases of course 
to be a water-drinker in this sense, and it is quite unnecessary here to 
supply povov. Matthies in loc. is not accurate. 


9. Two negatives employed together in one principal clause ! 
(Klotz, Devar. p. 695 sqq.; HE. Lieberkuhn, de negationum graec. 
cumulatione. Jen. 1849. 4to.), either 

a. Produce an affirmation, Acts iv. 20 od dvvapeba nets, a 
eldomev Kal HKovcapeEV, 447) NaAELY, MON possumus... non dicere, 
i.e. we must declare (cf. Aristoph. ran. 42 odrou wa tv Anuntpa 
Svvapat pun yedav), 1 Cor. xii. 15 od mapa TodTo ovK éoTW Ex TOD 
cwopatos it is still, for all that, of the body (belongs to it). In the 
first passage the particles of negation belong to different verbs 
(ovvdpeOa is first denied and then AaAciv), in Syriac tawoats tl 
wetted fly somo spay [doy ; in the last, ode éorw consti- 


tutes a single idea which is negatived by the first: ov, — the not 
belonging to the body is denied, (cf. ov« eivac used thus in a nega- 


Meyer and BCrusius have decidedly agreed with me in the various passages adduced 
above ; but I take especial pleasure in the remarks of my acute colleague Klotz ad 
Devar. p. 9 sq. in support of my view. As to non... sed, cf. Kritz, Sallust. Jug. p. 533 ; 
Hand,: Tar; IV. 271: 

1 The two negatives equivalent to an affirmative in Rom. xy. 18, which occur in two 
different clauses blended by attraction, require no special notice. 


7 §55, NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 499 


tive clause in Demosth. Androt. 420c.; Aclian. 12, 36). See 521 
besides, Matt. xxv. 9 text. rec. Cf. Poppo, Thue. III. IV. 711; 
Mtth. IT. 1449. Or, 

b. They both produce but a single negation (which is the more 
frequent case), and serve (originally) only to make the principal 
negation which would have sufficed alone more distinct and forci- 465 
ble, and to impart to the sentence a negative character through- “hed. 
out:1 Jno. xv. 5 yapis euod od divacbe roveiv ovdév non potestis one 
Jacere quidquam, i.e. nihil pot. fac. (Dem. Callip. 718 ¢.), 2 Cor. 

xi. 8 wapov ... 0d Katevapknoa ovdevos, Acts xxv. 24 émuBowrtes 
pn oeiv avtov Sv pynKxéte, Mark xi. 14 pnKéte els Tov alova éx 
gov wndels kaprov hayyn, 1 Cor. i. T dste buds wr tortepeicOar ev 
endevi yapicpars, Matt. xxii. 16; Mark i. 44; v. 37; vii. 12; 
ix. 8; xii. 84; xv. 4f.; Matt. xxiv. 21; Luke iv. 2; viii. 43 (61 
ere yaex. Lo; xx. 40 5° xxti.16; Jno. iil. 27; v.30; vi. 63;. ix. 33; 
xvi. 23 f.; xix. 41; Acts viii. 16, 39; Rom. xiii. 8; 1 Cor. viii. 2 
@var-); 2 Cor. vi. 3; 2 Thess. ii. 3; 1 Pet. iii. 6; 1 Jno.i. 5; 
Rey. xviii. 4, 11, 14, etce.2. Soin particular where the notion every, 
always, every time, everywhere, is added to the negative clause 
for its necessary or rhetorical amplification (Béckh, nott. Pind. 
p- 418 sq.),° or where the negation is decomposed, Matt. xii. 32 
ovK aheOnceTat AUTO OUTE Ev TOUTH TO AlM@VL OUTE EV TH pENAOVTE.! 
In this way a single sentence may contain a series of negatives: 
Luke xxiii. 53 ob otc Hv ovdéTa@ Ovdets Keiuevos, Mark v. 3 (cf. 
Aclian. anim. 11, 31 @s ovderm@moTe ovdéva ovdéev adixncas, Plat. 
Parmen. 166 a. 670 TaAXNA TOY p2) GvT@Y ovdevi OVAL OvdaLaS OvdE- 
piav Kowwviay éye, Phaed. 78 d.; Her. 2, 39 odd€ arXrov ovdevds 
euapvyou Keparis yevcetac AiyuTtiwoy ovdels, Lysias pro Mantith. 
10; Xenoph. A. 2,4, 23; Plat. Phil. 29 b. and soph. 249 b.; Lucian. 
chronol. 13; Dio C. 635,40; 402,85; 422, 24); see Wyttenb. Plat. 
Phaed. p. 199; Ast, Plat. polit. p. 541; Boisson. Philostr. Her. 
p. 446 and Nicet. p. 248, especially also Hm. Soph. Antig. p. 13 ; 


1 As in popular German ; yet the accumulation of negatives is genuine German, and 
has been expelled from the language of the educated only through the influence of the 
Latin, which so thoroughly pervades our literary culture. As to Latin, see Jani, ars 
poet. lat. p. 236 sq. 

2 In the Sept. cf. Gen. xlv. 1; Num. xvi. 15; Exod. x. 23; Deut. xxxiv. 6; Josh. 
ii. 11; 1 Sam. xii. 4, especially Hos. iv. 4 8mws undels whte dicd(nra unre eAeyxy undels. 
Transcribers have in such sentences sometimes omitted a negative, see /’r. Mr. p. 107. 

§ But this mode of expression is not always employed, cf. Acts x. 14 od¢more Eparyov 
may xowvov kat axd0aprov (without var.), 1 Jno. iv. 12. 

4 Klotz, Devar. II. 698: in hac enuntiatione ita repetita est negatio, quod unumquodque 
orationis membrum, quia eo amplificabatur sententia, quasi per se stare videbatur. 


500 «$B. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 

Gayl. p. 382 sq. When ovdé ne ... quidem is employed, it is usual 
522 in Greek to prefix another negative to the verb (ef. Stallb. Plat. 

rep. I. 279; Poppo, Thue. III. I. 460). So Luke xviii. 13 ov« 


nOerEv ovdE TOs OPOadpovs Eis TOV OvpavoY eTrapat. 


In 1 Cor. vi. 10, after several antecedent partitive clauses (ove, ovre, 
ov, ov), the negative is once more repeated for the sake of perspicuity with 
466 the predicate Bacirciay Geod ob KAnpovopyjcovot. The best Codd., how- 
ithed. ever, [Sin. also] omit it, and Lchm. has expunged it. In Rev. xxi. 4 6 
Odavatos otk éotat Ett, ovTe TéevOos o'TE Kpavyy oUTE TOvos diK eoraL ert, the 
writer might also without hesitation have dispenged with the second ov. 
444 What comes nearest, however, is Aesch. Ctesiph. 285 b. otd€ ye 6 aovnpds 
bthed. ot« dv ore yévoiro Onpooia xpyords, see Bremi in loc. (c. 77), cf. also Plat. 
rep. 4, 426 b. and Hm. Soph. Antig. as above. On the other hand, ov« 
éorar ert ove 7évOos etc. would be quite according to rule. In Acts xxvi. 26 
the text. rec. gives AavOavew avrov Te TovTwr od Te(Mopar od dév; but the better 
Codd. omit either ovde or tr. =[Yet otf€v with rt is found in Cod. Sin.*] 

On the pleonasm of yy after verbs in which the idea of negation is 
already contained, see § 65, 2, p. 604. 

Note. A peculiar kind of negation is formed with e in oaths by virtue 
of an aposiopesis of the apodosis ; as, Mark vili. 12 duyv A€yw ip, €i 
Sobycerer TH yevea TavTn onpetov i.e. no sign will be given ; Heb. iii. 11; 
iv. 3 Sept. Guooa, €i eiseXevoovrat eis THY Katdtavolv pov. This is an 
imitation of the Hebrew mx (cf. Gen. xiv. 23; Deut.i.35; 1 Kings i. 51; 
ii. 8; 2 Kings iii. 14, etc.), and a form of imprecation must always be 
supplied as the apodosis: in the last passage, then will I not live, not be 
Jehovah ; in passages where the speaker is a man, so may God punish me 
(cf. 1 Sam. iii. 17; 2 Sam. iii. 35), then will [not live, and the like; Ewald 
krit. Gr. 661, (cf. Aristoph. equit. 698 f. ef pio expdyw ... ovdérore Budcopa, 
Cic. fam. 9, 15,7 mortar, si habeo). ”“Edy is thus used in Neh. xiii. 25 ; 
Song of Sol. ii. 7; iii. 5 Sept. Of the opposite, éav uy or ei xy (affirmatively), 
no instance occurs in the N. T. (cf. Ezek. xvii. 19), for most unwarrantably 
has Haab S. 226 referred to this head Mark x. 80; 2 Thess. i. 3. 


§ 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


1. The (subjective) negative yu ne (with its compounds) is used 
in independent sentences to express a negative wish or a warning, 
and is construed 

628 a. With the Optative (Aor.) — the mood which would be used 
also without the negation— when a negative wish is expressed 
(Franke I. 27), e.g. in the frequently recurring ja) yévorto Luke 
xx, 16; Rom. iii.6; ix.14; Gal. ii. 17 (Sturz, dial. Alex. 204 sq.), 


§ 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 501 


and in pu) avtois AoysoOeln 2 Tim. iv. 16 (Plat. legge. 11, 918 d.). 
So also unxérs, according to the text. rec., Mark xi. 14 pyxéte ex 
god eis TOV alwva pnoels KapTrOV Payot may NO one ever again ctc. 
The Subjunctive dayyn, however, would here be more appropriate 
in the mouth of Christ, —#ifit only had more external authority 
in its favor. Besides, see Gayler p. 76 sqq. 82. + 

b. When a warning is expréssed, it is construed a) sometimes 
with the Imperative Present, usually where something permanent 
and which a person is already doing is to be indicated (Hm. Vig. 467 
809). Matt. vi. 19 ya) Oncaupifere duty, vil. 1 pr) Kpivete, Jno. v. 14 the. 
pynkéte auaptave, cf. Matt. xxiv. 6,117; Jno. xiv.1; xix. 21; Mark 
xii. 7,11; Rom. xi. 18; Eph. iv. 28; 1 Tim. v.23; 1 Pet. iv. 12; 445 
8) sometimes with the Subjunctive Aorist, when something tran- 4 
sient, which should not be begun at all, is to be expressed (Hm. 
as above), Luke vi. 29 aio Tov aipovtos gov TO iwatiov Kal Tov 
XLTaVAa [un KoAVTNS, Matt. x. 384 px) voulonre (do not conceive), dre 
7rOov etc., vi. 13; Luke xvii. 23; Acts xvi. 28. So in legislative 
prohibitions, Matt. vi. 7; Mark x. 19; Col. ii. 21, where not the 
repetition or continuation, but the action itself (though done but 
once) is interdicted, and absolutely. The Aor. Imperat., which 
specially has this signification, and is not at all rare in later writers 
(Gayl. p. 64),? does not occur in the N. T. (and is doubtful in the 
Sept. also). On the other hand, the Pres. Imperat. also is often 
used in reference to what should not be begun at all (Hm. as 
above, Franke I. 30); cf. Matt. ix. 830; Eph. v.6; 1 Tim. v. 22; 
1 Jno.iii.7. In general, see Hm. de praeceptis Atticistar. p. 4 sqq. 
(Opuse. I. 270 sqq.); cf. Soph. Aj. p. 163; Bhdy. 393 f.; Franke 
I. 28 sqq. The Imperat. and Subjunctive are both employed in 
one sentence in Luke x. 4. 


The Pres. Imperat. is also construed with py in Rom. xiii. 8 pydevt 
pndev ddeirere; for owing to the subjective negatives ddeiA. cannot be 
taken as an Indicative. Meiche’s observations on the other side are a 
strange mixture of obscurity and half-truth. And if he means to say that 
the subjective negatives are used in the same way in some of the passages 02+ 
adduced by Wetstein, he is very much mistaken; for in these passages 
the Inf. or Participle is employed, both of which regularly take p7. 


As to od with the Fut. Indic., partly in passages from the O. T. law, as 


1 There must here be a comma after épare, as H. Stephanus correctly remarked in 
the preface to his edition of the N. T. of 1576. If dpare wn be immediately connected, 
Opojoe must be substituted for @pocicde. Tdf. [in his 2d ed.] has not attended to 
this. [In his lst ed. and 7th he has it correctly. ] 

2 Cf. Bremi, excurs. 12 ad Lys. p. 452 sqq. 


502 § 56, CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


Matt. v. 21 od qovevoes, xix. 18; Acts xxiii. 5; Rom. xiii. 9, and partly 
in the N. T. style itself, Matt. vi. 5 otk eceaOe dsrep ot troxpirat, where 
py with the Subjunctive might have been expected, cf. § 48,5. Not unlike 
this is Xen. Hell. 2, 3,384; see Locella, Xen. Ephes. p. 204; Franke I. 24. 
(On py with the Fut. Indic. in a mildly prohibitive sense, see Weber, 
Demosth. p. 369.) 


When y7 in a prohibitive sense is joined with the third Person 
(as frequently in laws, see Franke, as above, p. 32), the Imperat. 
is used (always in the N.T.), not the Subjunctive (Hm. Soph. Aj. 
p. 163): the Present Imper. when what is forbidden has already 
commenced, and the Aorist Imper. when something which has not 
4G8 yet commenced is to be avoided (in future also); as, Rom. vi. 12 pu 
ith el. ody BacirevéTw 1) Gpaptia ev TO OvnTe tuov copare, xiv.16; 1 Cor. 
vil. 12,18; Col. ii.16; 1 Tim. vi. 23 Jas.1.7; 1 Pet. iv. [ose 
iii. 8; on the other hand Matt. vi. 3 42) yuwTw 7) apiotepa cov etc., 
xxiv. 18 yu) émictpeate dricw, Mark xiii. 15 pu) kataBaro eis TH 
oixiav (probably also in Matt. xxiv. 17 according to good Codd. 
[Sin. also], where the text. rec. has xataBawétw). Cf. Xen. C. 
7,5, 73; 8,7,26; Aeschin. Ctes. 282 c.; Mtth. IJ. 1157; Kuhner 
44g U1. 118. (Instances from the Sept., therefore, are not needed 
fib el, here ; otherwise, besides Deut. xxxiii. 6 and 1 Sam. xvii. 52, many 
could be found, as Josh. vii. 3; 1 Sam. xxv. 25; 2 Sam. 1. 21; 
Judges vi. 39.) 
If a dehortation in the 1st Pers. (Plur.) is to be expressed, p7) 
takes the Subjunctive, and either the Pres. or the Aor. according 
to the distinction indicated above (Hm. Soph. Aj. p. 162), e.g. 
Jno. xix. 24 pw oxlowpev, but 1 Jno. iii. 18 pw) ayarra@pev oyo (as 
some were doing), Gal. vi. 9; 1 Thess. y.6; Rom. xiv. 18; 1 Cor. 
x. 8. In Gal. v. 26 the Codd. vary, some having pi) yuvepuela 
Kevodofou (text. rec.), others yevmueOa. The better [Sin. also] 
favor the former, (and Lehm. and Tdf. have so printed). The 
apostle may mean to reprove a failing already existing in the 
churches, as seems probable also from what precedes. Mey. takes 
a different view. From Greek authors, see evidence for the use 
' of the Ist Pers. Plur. Subj. in Gayler 72 sq. 
. 2. In dependent clauses px) (unmws, wjrrote etc.) is used, 
525 a. In the sense of in order that not (for which iva py is more 
commonly employed), with the Subjunctive after Pres. and Imperf. 
1 Cor. ix. 27 tramialw pov 70 cdma... pnts... adoKios yévo- 
pat, 2, CON. Metis, eee Opeatue 20); XV.O2); Like xii. 58 and 
frequently ; with the cwiutes after a Preterite, Acts xxvil. 42 Trav 


§56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 503 


oTpatiwtav Bovrn éyéveto, iva Tors Secpatas atoKtelvwot, wn TUS 
exxoduuBnoas Stagdvyot, but good Codd. [Sin. also] have here 
Svapvyn, which Lchm. and Tdf. have adopted (Bhdy. 401; Krii. 
168). The latter reading, however, may be a correction or an 
error of transcribers. The Subj. is also used in the O. T. quota- 
tion Matt. xiii. 15; Acts xxviii. 27, where, however, as a permanent 
result is meant, it is less questionable. The Indic. Fut. (along 
with a Subj. Aor.) Mark iv. 12 Sept. parote émictpéwou Kat 
agde@noetac (according to good Codd.) [as also the Fut. BrAnAjon 
Matt. v. 25] it is not necessary to regard as likewise dependent 
on pyzrote, though even then the Fut. would be quite proper, see 
Fr. This applies to tdcouas Acts xxviii. 27 (Born. idowpac) cf. 
Iuke xiv. 8f. In Matt. vii. 6 Lchm. and Tdf. read pajotre xata- 
qmatnoovowv, Where Griesb. and Scholz have not noted any var. 

b. In the sense of that not, lest, after dpa, Brerre or hoPodpar, 
and the like (Hm. Vig. 797; Rost, Gr. 650f.). In this connection 
the particle is followed 

a) by*the Indicative, when the suspicion (apprehension) that 
something is, will be, or has been, a matter of fact, is also ex- 
pressed: Present Indic. Luke xi. 85 cxozret, 7) TO as TO €v col 
akotos €otiv (Hm. Soph. Aj. 272 uu) éori verentis quidem est ne 
quid nunc sit, sed indicantis simul, putare se ita esse, ut veretur, 4¢9 
cf. Gayl. 317 aq.) 5 Protev. Jacobi 141; Futwre Indic. Col. ii. 8 ithed. 
PrérreTe, wy Tis Ec Tat Huds Oo cvAaywyor ne futurus sit, ne existat, 
qui etc. Heb. 111.12; Mark xiv. 2; Her. 3,36; Plat. Cratyl. 393 ¢. ; 
Achill. Tat. 6, 2 (p. 837 Jac.) ; Xen. C. 4,1, 18 ete. (cf. Stallb. 447 
Plat. rep. 1. 836) ; Preterite Indic. after a Pres. Gal. iv. 11 doBodmae bth ed. 
Hwas, pnTas eikh Kexomwlaxa (may have labored), see Hm. Eurip. 
Med. p. 856; Poppo, Thue. I. 1.135; Stallb. Plat. Menon p. 98 sqq.; 526 
ef. Thuc. 3, 53; Plato, Lys. 218d.; Diog. L. 6,5; Lucian. Piscat. 
15 (Job i. 5), see Gay 317, 820. 

B) by the Subjunctive (Gayl. 823 sqq.), when the object of a 


1 We cannot with de Wette pronounce this acceptation inappropriate on the ground 
that “simply a general warning is here expressed.” That is just the question. An 
injunction to examine carefully lest such might be the case, Jesus might certainly give 
to his contemporaries, according to the assumption elsewhere made in the N. T. respect- 
ing their predominant religious character; and this injunction is in reality general. 
Let every one take care lest the second of the cases mentioned in vs. 34 should apply 
tohim. ‘The apprehension that Jesus would thus be countenancing the doctrine of the 
complete depravation of man’s reason is groundless; and Niemeyer (Hall. Pred.-Journ. 
1832. Noy.) should not have been induced by such apprehension to take the Indicative 
for the Subjunctive, — an interpretation which he supports, moreover, by passages of 
a totally different nature. 


ATO 
Tth ed. 


448 
6th ed, 


527 


504 § 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


mere apprehension, which may perhaps prove groundless, is indi, 
cated: by the Present Subj. Heb. xii. 15 Sept. émicxorobvtes .. . 
pn tis pila mixpias ... évoxAy (Hm. Soph. Aj. 272 ua) 4 verentis 
est, ne quid nunc sit, simulque nescire se utrum sit nee ne signi. 
ficantis) ; usually by the Aorist Subj. in reference to something still 
future, Matt. xxiv. 4 Prérere, un Tis Uuads TrAaVHoH, 2 Cor. xi. 3 
hoBodpat, ujmws ... Pbaph Ta vonwata vporv, xii. 20; Luke xxi. 8; 
Acts xiii. 40; 1 Cor. viii. 9; x. 12. The same mood is employed 
in narration after a Pret. Acts xxiii. 10 evrAaBnOets py) Stacracd7 

. €kéXevae, XXVii. 17, 29, as after words of fearing (where the 
fear appears to be well founded, Rost 8. 650) even in the best 
Greek prose authors, Xen. A. 1, 8, 24 Kipos deicas, pun drricbev 
ryevopmevos Kataxon To “EXAnuxov, Cyr. 4, 5, 48 wordy hoBov nuiv 
mapelxete, wy TL TAOyTE, Lysias caed. Eratosth. 44 6 eyo dedi@s pun 
Tis TUOnTaL érreOUpovy avTov atodecat, Cf. also Thuc. 2, 101; Plato, 
Euthyd. 288 b. ; Herod. 4,1, 8; 6,1,115; see Mtth. Il. 1189; 
Bornem. Xen. sympos. p. 70; Gayl. 524f. The Indic. Fut. and 
Subjunct. are connected in 2 Cor. xii. 20 f. poBotuar, phiras ovy 
otous Oérw etpw buds Kayo evpeda vuiy... way TadLy éOovTos 
pov TaTEeLvacer pe O Geos ete. 

In this way we must judge of elliptical passages also (Gayl. 327), such 
as Matt. xxv. 9 pyrore odk dpxéon Hutv Kat iptv lest there be not enough, i.e. 
it is to be feared that there may not be enough (according to the text. rec., 
where, however, recent critics read pyrore ob pty dpxéon, though without 
decidedly preponderant authority ; and then pore is taken by itself: no, 
in no wise). Rom. xi. 21 et 6 Oeds r&v Kata piow KAddwv oik épeicaro, 
pymas ovde cod deioerat (far better supported than deionta) if God has 
not spared, (I tear and presume) that he will not spare thee also, ne tibi 
quoque non sit parciturus, cf. Gen. xxiv. 39. 

In Gal. ii. 2 dvéByv ... dvebeunv ... patos cis kevov Tpéxw 7} EOpapor, 
Fr. (Conject. I. note, p. 50) considered the translation ne operam meam 
luderem aut lusissem faulty in two respects: because instead of tpéyw 
(after a Preterite) the Optative was to be expected; while the Indic. 
édpapov here would mean, what the apostle cannot have intended to say, 
that he had labored in vain. Hence Fr. took the words as a direct question: 
num frustra operam meam in evangelium insumo an insumsi? He himself, 
however, afterwards felt that this explanation is forced, and in the Opuscula | 
Fritzschiorum p. 173 sq. gave a different rendering. The difficulty in 
regard to tpéxw entirely disappears, so far as the N. T. is concerned ; 
indeed, the Pres. Subj.t is even appropriate, as Paul is speaking of apos- 


1 That rpéxw is Indicative [as is assumed again by Bitm. Gramm. desN. T. Sprachgebr. 
S. 303 and even Mey, Aufl. 4] Usteri and Schott inferred from the fact that eSpamov 


/ 


$56, CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 505 


tolic activity, still continwed. And the Pret. Indic. édpayov would be 
justified by the assumption that Paul gave to the whole sentence the same 
turn of expression that he would have employed, had he uttered the words 
in a direct form: in order that [ run not or have run (for might run, or 
might have run), cf. above, p. 288. Still simpler, however, is the inter- 
pretation now adopted by Fr., who takes the Preterite in a hypothetical 
sense, cf. Mtth. II. 1185; Hm. de partic. av p. 54: ne forte frustra cucur- 
rissem (which might easily have been the case, had I not propounded my 
doctrine in Jerusalem). But of course, it is not allowable to refer avebéunv 
(as Fr. does) to an intention of Paul to instruct himself (for not the mere 
exposition of his views could have secured him from having run in vain, 
but only the assent of the apostles) ; on the contrary, Paul must have been 
satisfied in his own mind that his views were correct, and only have designed 
to obtain the very important declaration of the apostles in his favor, without 
which his apostolic labors for the present and the past would have been 
fruitless, see de Wette in loc. 

In 1 Thess. iii. 5 pws is construed with both Indic. and Subjunct.: 
erena, eis TO yvOvat THY TioTW tpuOv, pHTwSs erTEelpagev twas 6 TEpalwy Kal 
eis Kevov yévyntat 6 Koros ypaov I sent to ascertain your faith, (fearing) 
lest haply the tempter have tempted you, and my labor be fruitless. The 
different moods here are obviously justifiable. The temptation (to waver 471 
in faith) might have already taken place; but whether the apostle’s labor Met. 
had been rendered fruitless by it depended on the result of the temptation, 
as yet not known to him, and might be dreaded as impending. [Ir.’s 
interpretation (Opusc. Fritzschior. p. 176): ut... cognoscerem, an forte 
Satanas vos tentasset et ne forte labores mei irriti essent, appears to me 
harsh, as pyjzws would thus be taken in two senses. And I can by no 
means admit that according to my interpretation the Fut. yevyoerar would 
be required instead of yévnrat. On the contrary, the Fut. denoting an 
apprehension which cannot be verified, and in any event will not be verified 
at some definite future time, would be far too explicit. See also Hm. Soph. 

Aj. p. 48 and partic. av p. 126 sq.; Mtth. IT. 1186. 

Note. Verbs of fearing are regularly followed by the simple py, pyres, 
etc. not by wa pn: hence in Acts v. 26 tva pi) AacPdow must not be 
connected with éfoBovtvro tov Aadv, as is done by most expositors (even 
Mey.) ; but it is dependent, rather, on jyayev avdrods od perd Bias, and the 449 
words éoPotvto yap tov Nacv are to be considered as parenthetical. bth ed. 


3. The intensive od jw (in reference to what in no wise will 528 
or should take place)! is construed sometimes, and indeed most 


follows ; forgetting that two different moods, according to different conceptions, may 
be and sometimes are connected with one and the same particle. (See the passage to 
be quoted immediately : 1 Thess. iii. 5.) 
1'Thus od uf regularly refers to the future (Matt. xxiv. 21 ofa od yéyovev... of 
ov wh yévntat). Moreover, it is now the prevalent opinion of scholars, that this idiom 
64 


506 § 56, CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


frequently, with the Subjunct. Aorist, sometimes with the Sub- 
junct. Present (Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 51, see below), and sometimes 
also with the Indic. Fut. (Bengel on Matt. v. 18 is mistaken), see 
Ast, Plat. polit. p. 365; Stallb. Plat. rep. IT. 86 sq.; Ellendt, Lexie. 
Soph. II. 409 sqq.; Gayl. p. 430 sqq. The difference between the 
Subj. Aor. and the Fut. Indic. Qwhich alone occur in the N. T.) 
is defined by Hm. Soph. Oed. Col. ver. 853 thus: Conjunctivo Aor. 
locus est aut in eo, quod jam actum est (see, however, Hllendt as 
above, p. 411 sq.), aut in re incerti temporis, sed semel vel brevi 


A472 temporis momento agenda; /utwrt vero usus, quem ipsa verbi 
ithed. forma nonnisi in rebus futuris versari ostendit, ad ea pertinet, 


5 


9 


quae aut diuturniora aliquando eventura indicare volumus aut 
non aliquo quocunque, sed remotiore aliquo tempore dicimus 
futura esse. The inquiry whether this distinction is observed in 
the N. T., is rendered difficult by the variations of MSS., of which, 
in many passages, some have the Indic. Fut., and some the Aor. 
Subj. So far as can be ascertained by the present apparatus of 
various readings, the Subj. is established in Matt. v. 18, 20, 26; 
x. 238; xvili. 8; xxiii. 839; Mark xiii. 2, 19, 30; Lukewingre 
xil..59; xiii. 35; xvill. 17,380; xxi. 18; Jno. vill. ob 
xi. 26, 56; 1 Thess. iv. 15; 1 Cor. viii. 13 ; 2 Pet. 1.10 ; Reyoimeiae 
ili. 8,12; xviii. 7, 21 f.; xxi. 25,27. There is a preponderance 
of evidence for the Subj. in Matt. xvi. 28; xxvi. 35; Mark ix. 41; 
xvi. 18; Lukeil. 153 ix. 27; xvii. 7, 30; xxii. 68: Jnosyeee 
viii. 12, 52; xiii. 8; Rom. iv. 8; Gal. v.16; 1 Thess. v. 3. _ Theva 
is at least as much evidence for the Subj. as for the Fut. in Mark 
xiv. 831; Luke xxi. 33; Matt. xv. 5; xxiv. 35; Gal. iv. 30;¢Hen: 
x. 17; Rev. ix. 6 (xviii. 14).1. The authorities decidedly favor 


is to be considered as elliptical: ob wh worhon for od dédorKa or ov PdBos, od déos éort 
(there is no fear) wh) mw. see Ast, Plat. polit. p. 365; Matthiae, Eurip. Hippol. p. 24 ; 
Sprachl. IJ.1174; Hm. Soph. Oed. C. 1028; Hartung II. 156. This involves, indeed, 
the assumption that the Greeks lost sight of the origin of the expression ; for in many 
passages “ there is no fear that” is not appropriate, (in the N. T’. Matt. v.20; xviii. 3; 
Luke xxii. 16; Jno. iv. 48). Earlier Hm. (Eurip. Med. p. 390 sq.) had explained the 
phrase differently, cf. also Gayl. p. 402. The connective ovdé wh («al ov un) occurs in 
the N. T. only in Rev. vii. 16 (var.), but frequently in the Sept. e.g. Exod. xxii. 21 ; 
xxiii. 13; Josh. xxiii. 7; and obdels uh in Wisd. i. 8. Generally, od wh is of very 
frequent occurrence in the Sept., and its prevalence may probably be referred to that 
effort after expressiveness, characteristic of the later language. ~The instances have 
been collected by Gayl. p. 441 sqq. It is not the fact, however, that in the N. T. 
(Hitzig, Joh. Mare. S, 106) Mark and the Revelation display a predilection for od m7. 
A concordance will prove the contrary. 

1Tt must not be overlooked that sometimes the Future form may be occasioned in 
MSS. bya preceding or following Future, as in Jno, viii. 12 od uh mepumarhoe ... GAN 
ete. 


§ 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 507 


the Fut. in Luke x. 19; xxii. 84; Jno. iv. 14; x.5. The Fut. is 450 
established (without var.) in Matt. xvi. 22 od yum) otras cou TodTo "it 
(absit) ne tibi accidat hoc. Accordingly the Subj. is indisputably 
predominant in the N. T. (cf. Lob. Phryn. p. 722 sq.), and this is 

no less the case in Greck authors, see Hartung, Partik. I. 156 f. 
Hermann’s rule on the whole does not apply to the N. T.; for 
although several passages might be interpreted in accordance with 

it, yet others in turn are at variance with it, and the Aor. is em- 
ployed where the Fut. should have been used, as e.g. 1 Thess. 

iv. 15 67u jets of SavtTes ol TeEpiNerTrOpevot Els THY TapovTlay TOD 
Kupiov ov 1) POdcwpev Tovs KoywnOévtas, Where the point of time 

is very definitely in mind viz. on the day of Christ’s second coming ; 
and Heb. viii. 11, where in ov pu dudaEwow there is reference to a 
precise time (the Messianic period, vs. 10), and duration also is 
indicated, cf. Rev. xxi. 25. In fact, the Subj. Aor. in the sense 

of the Future had become usual in later Greek, cf. Lob. as above, 

p- 723; Thilo, Act. Thom. p. 57. , Mdv. also S. 127 discovers no 
perceptible difference between the Fut. and the Aor. in this con- 
struction. (Gayl. 440 sqq. has catalogued all the passages in the 
Sept. where ov «7 occurs.) 


The statement of Dawes, however, which recognizes no difference of 
meaning between the Aor. and Fut. in this construction, but as respects 
the former allows only the 2d Aor. Act. (and Mid.) in Greek texts, has 
been almost universally rejected (see Mtth. IT. 1175 f.; Stallb. Plat. rep. 
II. 343; on the other hand, Bhdy. 402 f.), and cannot be applied to the 
N. T., where the Ist Aor. is as frequent as the 2d Aor. even in verbs 473 
that have a 2d,Aor. in common use, (var. see Rey. xviii. 14). th ed 
Sometimes od py 1s followed, according to a few Codd., by a Present 
Indic., viz. in Jno. iv. 48 €ay un onpeta Kat répara idnre, od py) TioTEverE, and 
Heb. xiii. 5 Sept. od py ce éyxaradeizw; indeed, one Cod. (quoted by 
Griesb.) has in Rey. iii. 12 the Optative, ob pH eé€AGor. The last is un- 
doubtedly only a mistake of a transcriber, misled by the ear (the case is 
different in the orat. obliq. in Soph. Philoct. 611, Schaef. in loc. ; cf. also 
the same on Demosth. II. 3821), and the Subjunctive was long ago restored. 
Likewise in Heb. as above, éyxatadizw is undoubtedly the true reading. 
But in Jno. iv. 48 perhaps the reading ought to be miarevnre, as the Subj. 530 
Present is so used in Greek authors also, as in Soph. Ocd. Col. 1024 ots 
ov pn Tore xX“pas puydvres THSO émevyuwvtat Geots (according to Hm. 
and others), Xen. C. 8, 1,5; An. 2, 2,12 (see Hm. Eurip. Med. Elmsl. 
p- 890; Stallb. Plat. polit. p. 51; Ast, Plat. pol. p. 365), and, as in the 
passage from John, after a conditional clause with éév in Xen. Hier. 11,15 
edy Tovs pidous Kparys €d rowdy, od pur) cou S’vovTat avTexew of ToAgutor, and 


451 


6th ed. 


AT4 


508 § 57. INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES. 


frequently in Demosth. (Gayl. p. 437). In John, however, there is pre- 
ponderant MS. authority [to which Sin. must be added] for wucrevonre, 


which Lchm. and Tdf. have adopted. What Hm. Iphig. Taur. p. 102. 


says of an Indic. Pres. after od yy, the received text would hardly substan- 
tiate. As to Luke xviii. 7 see § 57, 3 and p. 494. 

This intensive ov sy is used also in dependent clauses: not merely in 
relative clauses Matt. xvi. 28; Luke xviii. 80; Acts xiii. 41, but also in 
objective clauses with o7e Luke xiii. 85; xxii. 16; Matt. xxiv, 34; Jno. 
xi. 56 ré doxet tutv, ore ob pn EAOn eis Tiv éoptyv ; what think ye? that he 
will not come to the feast? Likewise in direct question with ris, Rev. xv. 4 
tis ov py hobybn; Cf. with the former passages, Xen. C. 8,1, 5 rodro yap 
ed cidévar xpy, OTL od py) SUvyTaL Kipos eipety etc. Thuc. 5, 69; and with 
the latter, Neh. ii. 8 dca ri od py yévrau movypov ete. On od py in an 
interrogative clause, without an interrogative pronoun, construed with a 
Subjunctive or a Future (Ruth iii. 1), see § 57, 3, p. 511 sq. 

Note. Wot ..., no one ..., nothing ... except, is commonly expressed by 
OU... ovdels ..., ovdEY... ef wy, as in Matt. xi. 27; xxi.19; Luke iv. 26; 
Jno. xvii. 12, ete. (Klotz, Devar. p. 524). More rarely the negation is 
followed by Any, as in Acts xx. 28; xxvii. 22; 7 is found only in Jno. 
xiii. 10 text. rec.: 6 AeAovpevos odK EXEL xpEtay 7) To's TOdas VivacGa. Most 
Codd. have ei 7, and this Lchm. has adopted. ‘The latter, however, may be 
a correction of the rarer 7, which yet occasionally occurs, Xen. C. 7, 5, 41. 


§57. INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES. 


1. In the N. T., interrogative sentences (cf. Krit. 250 f.) which 
commence neither with an interrogative pronoun, nor with a 
special interrogative adverb (7s, zrod etc.), 

a. if direct, have usually no interrogative particle Gi) no. vii. 23 ; 


Mh el. xiii. 6; xix. 10; Acts xxi. 87; Luke xiii. 2; 1 Cor. v. 2; Rar! 


531 .. 


ne 219 al it. 1, etc. ).} Sohalnved however, contrary to the 
usage of the written language of the Greeks, e: is employed before 
a question in which the inquirer merely discloses his uncertainty, 
without intimating that he expects a reply (see no. 2). 

b. if tndirect, they are introduced by e¢ (which is here, too, the 
conditional conjunction ).? 


1 Hence it is sometimes matter of dispute among commentators whether a particular 
sentence is to be taken as interrogative or not, e.g. Jno. xvi. 31; Rom. viii. 33; xiv. 22; 
1 Cor. i. 13; 2 Cor. iii. 1; xii. 19; Heb. x. 2; Jas. ii. 4; or how many words are 
comprehended in an interrogation, e.g. Jno. vii. 19; Rom. iv. 1. On this, Grammar 
can one give no decision. 

2 How ed acquires the general force of an interrogative par dikes see Hartung, Partik. 
IT. 201 ff. ; cf. Klotz, Devar. 508. 


§ 57. INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES? 509 


In direct double’ questions jToTepov....% is used only once, Jno. 
vii. 17 ; elsewhere the first question is without an interrogative 
particle, Luke xx. 4; Gal. i.10; iii. 2; Rom. ii. 8, etc., and only 
the second has 7, — if negative, 7 o¥ Matt. xxii. 17; Luke xx. 22, 
or ») wy Mark xii. 14; ef. Bos, Ellips. p. 759; Klotz, Devar. 576 sq. 
Sometimes, moreover, 7) is used in an interrogative sentence which 
refers to a preceding categorical sentence (like the Latin an, see 
Hand, Tursell. I. 849) 2 Cor. xi. 7 ef cal (dubTns TO NOyH, GAN’ ov 
TH yvoos...%) auaptiav éroinca guavtov tarewav; or did I 
commit an offence ? Rom. vi. 8 (Dio C. 282, 20) ete. ef. Lehmann, 
Juucian. I. 331 sq. 

2. The following are instances of the singular use of e¢ in direct 
questions (especially in Luke): Acts i. 6 érrnp@twv avtov NéyovTes * 


Kupte, el... atoKkabiotaves THY Bacirelav ; Luke xxii. 49 efrov: 452 
Kuple, et TaTatopuey év wayaipa; Matt. xii. 10; xix. 3; Luke xiii. 23; Sth ed. 


Acts xix. 2; xxi. 87; xxii. 25; Mark viii. 23 (on Matt. xx. 15 
see Mey.) ; cf. Sept. Gen. xvii. 17; xliii.6; J Sam. x. 24; 2 Sam. 
li. 1; xx.17; 1 Kings xiii. 14; xxii. 6; Jon. iv. 4,9; Joel i. 2; 
Tob. v.5; 2 Mace. vii. 7; Ruthi.19. Perhaps this use originated 
in an ellipsis: J should like to know (Mey. on Matt. xii. 10); ef. 
the indirect inquiry in German, 0b das wahr ist? But at the 
period of which we are treating e¢ had attained to all the rights of 
a direct interrogative (cf. Schneider, Plat. civ. I. 417), like the 
Liat. an which later writers also use in direct question ; and it 
would be affectation to insist on taking e¢ as equivalent to the 
indirect an (Fr. Mt. p. 425; Mr. p. 827). The sz by which this 
et is rendered in the Vulgate has become in the same way a direct, 
from an indirect (Liv. 39, 50), interrogative particle. That even 
in Greek authors ei is sometimes used in direct questions (Hoogey. 
doctr. partic. 1. 8327) was asserted again by Stallb. Phileb. p. 117, 
but denied correctly in regard to Attic prose by Bornem. Xen. 
Apol. p. 89sq., and Stallb. recalled his statement, Plat. Alcib. 
I. 281; cf., further, Herm. Lucian. conser. hist. p. 221; Fr. Mr. 


bo 


p-. 328, and Klotz, Devar. 511. In the passage, Odyss. 1, 158, ad- 475 
duced by Zeune, Vig. p. 506, e¢ was long ago corrected into 7; in Met 


Plato rep. 5,478 d. all vood Codd. have évros for ef, and in Aristoph. 
nub. 483 (Palairet, observatt. p. 60) e¢ does not mean num, but 
an in an indirect question. So also in Demosth. Callicl. p. 735 b. 
On the other hand, Dio Chr. 30, 299 ed tu adXdo tyiw rposetaker, 
éméateirev 7) SuedkéyOn; where follows the answer: qoAAa kat 
Saypovia —is probably corrupted (Reiske proposes 7) Tv ano), 


510 »§ 57. INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES. 


or it is to be taken as an indirect question: but if he gave you any 
other injunction? (may be asked, some one will perhaps ask). 
Schneider, even in Plat. civ. 4, 440 e¢., retains on manuscript 
authority ec, which recent editors had changed into (add) 7; but 
he explains this use of the particle in (only apparently) a direct 
question by an ellipsis, and has expunged the mark of interrogation. 
(Some have wanted to take é7e also as a direct interrogative in 
the N. T., but without sufficient reason, see § 58, 10, 5 p. 456 sq.). 


The interrogative dpa is originally dpa strengthened, and in an inter- 
rogative sentence, distinguished as such by the voice, denotes the conclusion 
from something preceding, whether a negative answer is expected (where 
dpa is equivalent to num tgitur), or an affirmative (ergone) Klotz, Devar. 
180 sqq.' The former is the more usual in prose (Hm. Vig. 823), and 
occurs in the N. T. Luke xviii. 8 dpa cipnoe ryv tiotw emt rhs yas; will 
he then find faith on the earth? and dpaye Acts viii. 80, cf. Xen. Mem. 
3, 8, 3 dpaye, epy, épwrds pe, el Tt olda TupeTod ayadv; ovK eywy’, ey. On 
the other hand, in Gal. ii. 17 dpa might be rendered by ergone: is Christ 
therefore a minister df sin? (cf. Schaef. Melet. p. 89; Stallb. Plat. rep. 

453 Il. 228; Poppo, Thue. III. I. 415). Others read dpa without a question ; 
ithed. this is opposed, however, by the fact that Paul invariably makes a ques- 
tion precede px) yévorro, see Mey. in loc. 

To the interrogative particles, 76s, zdre, rod, etc., which are appropriated 

533 to direct questions, correspond, as is well known, in indirect questions 
(and discourse) the relative forms 6zws, é7dre, d7ov, etc. (Bttm. II. 277). 
Even Attic authors, however, do not always observe the distinction (see 
Kiihner II. 583; Hm. Soph. Antig. p. 80; Poppo, ind. ad Xenoph. Cyrop. 
under z@s and zov), and later writers neglect it frequently. In the N.T. 
the interrogative forms are predominant even in indirect discourse (7dGev 
Jno. vil. 27, vod Matt. viii. 20; Jno. iii. 8; on ws see Wahl, Clay. 439). 
“Orov in the N. T. is employed rather as a strict relative. 


3. In negative interrogative sentences, 
> . . . 
a. ov where an affirmative answer is expected (Hartung, Partik. 
476 I. 88) is commonly equivalent to nonne, as in Matt. vii. 22 od 
The. 76 c@ dvouate mpoedntevcapev ; have we not? etc. xiii. 27; Luke 
Xil..65) xvii. 17; Jas. ii:.53 Heb. aii) 163,40 ‘Cor. ix. 1.3), ae 
Sometimes, when the speaker himself assumes a negative answer, 
’ . . . . . . 
ov is used with an expression of indignation and reproach, Acts 
xiii. 10 ov mravon diactpépwr Tas dd0ds Kupiov Tas evOelas ; wilt thou 
not cease etc.? The tone employed indicates, as with us, the par- 
1 A different view is taken by Lezdenroth, de vera vocum origine ac vi per linguar. 


comparationem investiganda (Lips. 1830. 8vo.) p. 59sqq. Further, see on &pa and 
apa Sheppard in the Classical Museum, no. 18. 


§57, INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES. 511 


ticular cast of the question: Wuxr thow not cease ? (i.e. thou wilt 
cease wilt thou not?) is nonne desines? but, wilt thow not CEASE ? 
(i.e. wilt thou persist?) is non desines? 'The ov here negatives 
the verb (non desinere i. q. pergere), see Franke I. 15. Cf. Plut. 
Lucull. c. 40 od ravon od TrOUTHV pév Os Kpdcoos, fav 8 ws Aov- 
KovAXOs, Aeyov Sé ws Kdtwv ; So also Luke xvii. 18; Mark xiv. 60. 
— Ov« apa in Acts xxi. 38 means non igitur, art thou not therefore 
(as I supposed, but as I now see denied) etc. Klotz, Devar. 186, 
(nonne, as the Vulgate renders it, would rather be, in connection 
with nevertheless, dp’ ov or ovxovv, see Hm. Vig. 795, 824). 

b. My (yj7e) is used, when a negative answer is presumed or 
expected (Franke as above, 18).1. Jno. vii. 31 pu) wrelova onpela 
momaoes ; surely he will not do more signs will he? (that is not 
conceivable), xxi. 5; Rom. iii. 5 (Philippi is incorrect), ix. 20; 
xi. 1; Matt. vii. 16; Mark iv. 21; Acts x. 47, etc. Both inter- 
rogatives are (in accordance with the above distinction) used con- 
secutively in Luke vi. 89 ware Svvatat tupros Tudrov odnyetv ; 
ouxXL aupotepar eis BoOvvov TecovvtTa ; The assertion of Hm. (Vig. 
789), that «7 sometimes anticipates an affirmative answer, has 
been contested by Franke 1. c. and others; some interpreters, 
however, have wanted to take it so sometimes in the N. 'T. (Liucke, 
Joh. I. 602; cf. Fr. Mtth. p. 432). But the speaker always has 
his eye on a negative answer, and would not be surprised if he 
received such: Jno. iv. 83 has any one brought him anything to 534 
eat? (1 can’t believe it, especially here in the country of the 
Samaritans !), vili. 22: will he kill himself? (yet we cannot believe 
that of him), cf. Matt. xii. 23; Jno. iv. 29; vii. 26, 35. Occa- 454 
sionally there exists an inclination to believe what is asked; but 4 
inasmuch as the question is put negatively, the speaker assumes 
the appearance, at least, of wishing a negative reply. Some have 
taken yu in the sense of nonme likewise in Jas. iii. 14 e¢ &}rov mexpov 
EXETE ... pi) KaTaKavyaobe Kai evdecbe Kata THs adnOelas — but 
incorrectly. The sentence is categorical: do not boast (of your 
Christian knowledge, vs. 13) against the truth. When p72) ov 
occurs in a question, ov belongs to the verb of the sentence, and 
pn alone is interrogatory, as in Rom. x. 18 ju) ov« Hxovoav ; did 
they fail to hear? (i.e. it can’t be that they did not hear, can it ?) 
vs. 19; 1 Cor. ix. 4,5; xi. 22 (Judg. vi.13; xiv. 3; Jer. viii. 4; 
Xen. Mem. 4, 2,12; Plat. Meno p. 89 c. and Lysias 218 d.; Acta 


Apocr. p.79). On the other hand, ov 7 is merely a strengthened 477 


1 As to the Latin num, see Hand, Tursell. p. 320. ith ef 


512 § 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 


form of a simple negation which may stand either interrogatively 
or not: Jno. xviii. 11 od py wlio adr; shall I not drink it? Arrian. 
Kpictet. 3, 22, 33, see § 56, 8, 505 sq. 


Acts vii. 42 pi) oddyia Kal Ovolas mposnvéyxaré pou ern reccapdxovra év 
™ €pypw; (from Amos): did ye offer to me...in the wilderness? (ye did 
not, did ye’); the narrative then proceeds with kat dveAdBere, because the 
question implies: ye brought me no offerings for forty years and ye (even) 
took up etc. A different view is given by Fr. Mr. p. 66. On the other 
hand, see Mey. The passage in Amos has not yet been itself duly ex- 
plained. Perhaps the prophet follows a different tradition from that 
contained in the Pentateuch. As to Luke xviii. 7 see above, p. 494. 

In Matt. vii. 9 ris eorw e& tudv dvOpwros, dv eav airnon 6 vids aitod aprov, 
pn A@ov éxvWdwoce aire; two questions are blended: who is there among 
you that ... would give? and, would one tf asked for... give... (surely 
he would not give, would he) ? Cf. Luke xi. 11 and Bornem. in loe. 

Note. As to Jno. xviii. 387 see, in particular, Hm. Vig. 794. Ovxovy is 
non (nonne) ergo with or without a question, otkoty ergo (the negation 
being dropped). Now if we read the above passage interrogatively ovKovy_ 
Baotreds ef ot; it will mean, art thou then not a king? nonne ergo 
(Im. Vig. 795) rex es? and the speaker thinks of an affirmative answer 
(after the words of Jesus 4 Pacirela 4 éuy etc.), see no. 38. But ovkodty 
(as editors have it) BacwWeds et od is simpler: thou art a king then, ergo 

535 rex es (perhaps with a touch of irony, see Bremi, Demosth. p. 238) with 
or without a question (Xen. Cyr. 2, 4,15; 5, 2, 26. 29; Aristot. rhet. 3, 
18, 14, etc.). Odxody gets the meaning of therefore, then, accordingly 
because originally otxoty also was regarded as interrogative, thou art a 
king then? (is it not so? is that not true ?), see Hm. Vig. p. 794 sq.; ef. 
Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 452 sq. A question appears to me more suitable 
to the speaker as a magistrate, and Liicke has expressed the same opinion. 
At all events, otxoty cannot signify non igztur, as Kiihnél and Bretschneider 
maintain ; in that case it would require to be written separately ovk ot. 


455 B. STRUCTURE OF PROPOSITIONS AND THEIR COMBINATION 
bth ed. INTO PERIODS. 


A478 
ith ed, § 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS COMPONENT PARTS, IN GENERAL. 


1. The necessary parts of a simple sentence are Subject, Predi- 
cate, and Copula. ‘As, however, the Subject and the Predicate 
may be supplemented and enlarged in a variety of ways by means 


1 Rost 742 and Gayl. p. 149 are opposed to distinguishing the words by means of 
accentuation. 


pie am 


§58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 5138 


of adjuncts; so again the Predicate is frequently, and the Subject 
sometimes, blended with the Copula. The limits of the Copula 
are never doubtful; but it may sometimes be uncertain which and 
how many words constitute the Subject or the Predicate, as in 
Rom. i. 17; 2 Cor. i. 17; xi. 18; xiii. 7. In this event we en- 
counter not a grammatical but a hermeneutical inquiry. 


The Infinitive (by itself), when it stands for the Imperative (Phil. 
iii. 16), see § 45, 5 p. 316, is not a complete sentence, because every gram- 
matical indication of the subject is wanting, which in other moods is given 
by the person of the verb. 


2. The Subject and the Predicate are regularly nouns (includ- 
ing Infinitives used as substantives, Phil. i. 22,29; 1 Thess. iv. 3); 
but sometimes whole clauses take their place: Luke xxii. 37 70 
yeypappevov det TeXeoOHvat év Euol, TO’ Kai META avOMwY éEdoyicbn, 
1 Thess. iv. 1 waperdBete rap’ judy To Tas Set Kuads TepuTrateiy, 
_ Matt. xv. 26 ot« éotw Kadov AaBeiv Tov dptov Tov Téxvwy etc. The 536 
«case of the Subject Gin independent sentences) is, as everybody 
knows, the Nominative, (in dependent the Accusative, Acc. with 
Inf.) ; yet the Partitive Genitive also may elliptically stand as the 
Subject, Acts xxi. 16 see § 30, 8, note 2. On the other hand, the 
alleged use of év as nota nominativi, in imitation of the Hebrew a 
essentiae, does not merit a moment’s consideration, and the latter 
itself is a grammatical figment; see § 29, note, p. 184. 


Deserving of distinct mention is the Predicate which consists of a Par- 
ticiple with the Article, as in Matt. x. 20 od yap tpets €oré of NaAodvres, 
Jno. v. 82; xiv. 28; Phil. ii. 13; Rom. viii. 33; Gal. i. 7, etc. ; this is to 
be carefully distinguished from the participle without the article, cf. Mtth. 
717; Fr. Rom. II. 212 sq. 


3. The Copula, as is well known, regularly agrees with the 
Subject in number, the Predicate in number and gender; except 
that when the Predicate consists of a substantive it may differ in 
gender and number from the Subject, e.g. 2 Cor. i. 14 cavynyua 
vuov éopév, 1 Thess. ii. 20 tpeis eore 1 Soéa yuadv Kal » yapa, Jno. 479 
Xi. 25 dye eis ) dvdotacis Kad % Son, Vili. 12; 2 Cor. iii. 2; Rom. 
vil. 13; Eph. i. 23 frus (1) éxxAnoia) éotl 7o cGpa adrod (see § 24, 

8) 3 1 Cor. xi. 7; Col. iv. 11; Luke xxii. 20.1 Yet deviations 456 
from the preceding rule occur, even in prose, when the writer pays Mh 
more regard to the meaning of the subject than to its grammatical 


1 Instances in which the Neuter has a depreciatory force, as in 1 Cor. vi. 11 taird 
tTwes Te, grammatically considered, come likewise under this head. 
65 


514 §58, THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 


form. This takes place more frequently in Greek than in Latin. 
Consequently ' 

a. A Singular Predicate (Copula) is joined to a Neuter Plural, 
mostly when the Subject is lifeless, and may be regarded as a mass 
(Bhdy. 418; Mtth. 761); as, Jno. x. 25 ra épya .. . waprupe? mept 
euov, 2 Pet. ii. 20 yéyovey avrois Tu Ecxata yeipova TAY TpPOTaD, 
Acts i.18; xxvi. 24; Jno. ix.8; x°21; 11. 23; xix. 3123hem 
vill. 38. But 

a) when prominence is to be given to the plurality and diver- 
sity of the objects (Weber, Demosth. p. 529), the Pred. is put 
in the Plural, as Jno. xix. 31 wa kateayaaouv avtov (of the three 
persons crucified) ta oxédXn (previously va wy peivn Ta copaTa 
is used, cf. also vi. 18; Rev. xxi. 12; xx. 7.;.Xen. An. dj (ee 
seldom otherwise, 1 Tim. v. 25 ra a@\Xas éxovta (eépya) KpuBhvas 
ov dtvvavTat, Rey. i.19 & cides Kai ad eioiv (but immediately 
afterwards @ médAree yiverOar), Luke xxiv. 11 (not Rom. iii. 2, see 
§ 39,1a.). In 2 Pet. iii. 10 Sing. and Plur. are united. Likewise 

5387 in Greek authors (Rost 475; Kiihner Il? 50) the Plural of the 
verb is not unfrequently used, especially when instead of the Neut. 
another substantive, Masculine or Feminine, may be in the mind 
(Hm. Soph. Elect. p. 67; Poppo, Thucyd. I. I. 97 f. and Cyrop. 
p.- 116; yet see Schneider, Plat. civ. 1.93) ; yet in other cases also, 
ef. Xen. Oyr. 2, 2,2; Anab. 1, 4,4; Hipparch. 8,10; Thue: 6, 
62; Ael. anim. 11, 37; Plat. rep. 1, 353 c. 

8) neuters, however, which denote or refer to animate objects, 
especially persons, are almost always construed with a Plural 
Pred.; as, Matt. x. 21 évavacrijcovta: téxva érl yoveis Kat OavaTo- 
covaw avtovs, Jas. ii. 19 ra Sanudvia Tictevovcew Kal pplacovow, 
Jno. x. 8 ov« Hxovcavy av’tav ta wpoBata, Mark iii. 11; v. 13; 
vil. 28; Matt. vi. 26 ;-xii! 21; 2 Tim. iv. 17 ;: Rev. i. 2,4 eens 
18; xvi. 14; xix. 21 (Matt. xxvii. 52 woddd capata Tov KeKouun- 
Levov aylov nyépOncav, Rev. xi. 13). In other passages the Codd. 
vary remarkably, and there is a preponderance of authority for the 
Sing. in Mark iv. 4; Luke iv. 41; viii. 38; xiii. 19; Jno. x. 12; 
1 Jno. iv.1; Rev. xviii. 3; indeed, in Luke viii. 2 is found without 
var. ad 75 datuovia Eq tT & e&eAnrAVOEL, VS.30 ersHprOev Satpudvia TOAAA, ~ 
and in 1 Jno. ii. 10 davepa éeotw ta téxva Tod Oeod Kal Ta T. TOD 
SiaBorov. Cf. also Eph. iv. 17 and Rom. ix. 8. The Sing. and 
Plur. are connected in Jno. x. 4 ra rpoBata aitd axonrovOel, ore 

480 otdacuv THY horny avtod, 27 Ta mpoBata Ths doris wou aKoveEt 

the kai dxodovOodct por, Rev. xvi. 14; cf. 1 Sam. ix. 12. Lastly 


§58, THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 515 


in Rey. xvii. 12 ra Séxa Képata Séxa Bucinrels ciciv the Plur. of the 
verb is more appropriate, on account of the Predicate noun, cf. 
1 Cor. x.11. The use of the Plural Pred. with animate Subjects 
is the rule in Greek authors also, cf. Xen. Cyr. 2, 3,9 ta Sa 
ériotavtat, Plat. Lach. 180¢. Ta peipdkia émipéuvnvtat, Thue. 1, 
faemesoo; (, 51; Hur. Bacch. 677f.; Arrian. Alex. 3, 28, 11; 
6,17, 12; see Hm. Vig. 739. 

In general, the construction of Neuters with Plural verbs is more 
frequent in Greek prose authors than is usually supposed (though the 
Codd. vary noticeably), Reitz, Lucian. VII. 483 Bip.; Ast, Plat. legg. 
p- 46; Zell, Aristot. Ethic. Nicom. p. 4 and 209; Bremi, exc. 10 ad Lys. 
p- 448 sq.; Held, Plutarch. Aem. Paull. p. 280; Ellendt, praef. ad Arrian. 
I. 21 sq.; Bornem. Xen. Cyrop. p. 173, but chiefly in later writers, and 
that without any distinction (Agath. 4,5; 9,15; 26,9; 28,1; 32,6; 
39,10; 42, 6, etc.; Thilo, Apocr. I. 182; Boisson. Psell. p. 257 sq.; Dresser, 
ind. to Epiphan. monach. p. 136). The proposal of Jacobs (Athen. p. 228, 
cf. also Heind. Cratyl. p. 137) to substitute the Singular in all such pas- 
sages was apparently retracted subsequently by that scholar himself (cf. 
Jacobs, Philostr. imag. p. 236), though where Codd. offer the Singular 
we may, with Boisson. Eunap. p. 420, 601, give it the preference. 

What was said of the Singular of the Pred. after Neuters applies only 
to the form of the verb; if the Predicate consists of etvae or yiveo@or with 
an adjective, the latter is put in the Plur. while the verb is Sing., as in 
Gal. v. 19 davepd éorw ra epya THs capkds, 1 Cor. xiv. 25 7a KpuTTa Tis 
Kapolas aitod pavepa yiverat. 

4. b. Collectives denoting animate objects are construed with 
a Plural Pred.: Matt. xxi. 8 0 wielatos dyNos Ectpwocav éavTav 
ta iwatia (Mark ix. 15; Luke vi. 19; xxiii. 1), 1 Cor. xvi. 15 
oloate TIHV olKiay STepava, OTL... els Siaxoviay Tots aylows EraéEav 
éavtovs, Rev. xviil. 4 €€€A Pere €& adrijs, 6 Nads pov (Hesiod. scut. 
327), also ix.18 amrextav@noav 70 Tpitov Tov avOparwr, Viii. 9 
(but Sing. viii. 8 f., 11); Luke vill. 837; Acts xxv. 24. Elsewhere 
the Plur. and the Sing. of the verb or Pred. occur in connection, as 
in Jno. vi. 2 nKodXoVOEL avT@ dydos TOAUs, OTL Epov (xii. OF, 
12f., 18), Luke i. 21 av 6 rads mposdoxdv Kal EOavpalor, Acts 
xv. 12 (1 Cor. xvi. 15). The Plural, in reference to a Collective, 
occurs in Luke ix. 12 dwéAvaov Tov dynov, iva amedOovTes .. . KATA- 
Avowot etc. When the Pred. consists of an adjective with eivas, 
the adjective is of course not only Plur. but also in the gender of 
the persons, as in Jno. vii. 49 6 dyAos obTos .. . émapatol elo. 
On the other hand, attributives in such constructions may stand 
either in the Plur. or the Sing. ;— in the Sing. when they precede 


5 


457 
Gth ed. 


8 


516 §58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 


the Substantive, as Mark ix. 15 ads 6 dynos (Sdvtes ... €&eOapBn- 

481 @ncav (Luke xix. 37; Acts v. 16; xxi.36; xxv. 24), Luke xxiii. 1 

The Gvactav adtav TO TAOS iyayov avrov. Yet in the N. T. the 
regular construction of Collectives with a Sing. Pred. is the more 
usual. The Plural construction often occurs in the Sept. also, as 
in Judg. ii. 10; Ruthiv. 11; 1 Sam. xii. 18f.; 1 Kings tie 
vill. 66; xii. 12; Isa. li. 4; Judith vi. 18 (Aaos is almost invariably 
construed with a Plural verb), and it is by no means rare in Greek 
authors ; as, Her. 9, 23 ws ode To mAHO0s érreBonOncav, Philostr. 
her. p. 109 0 otpatos a@upor Hoav, Thue. 1, 20; 4,128; Xen. Mem. 
4,3,10; Aclhan. anim. 5,54; Plutarch. Mar. p. 418 c¢.; Pausan. 
7,9,3; see Reitz, Lucian. VI.533 Lehm; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 446; 
Kriger, Dion. H. p. 284; Poppo, Thue. IIL. I. 529sq.; Ellendt, 
Arrian. Alex. I. 105. 


458 Here belongs in the main also 1 Tim. ii. 15 cwOjoeras dé (4 yuvy) did 
Othe. rs Texvoyovias, cov pelvwow (at yuvatkes) év zioret, for 7 yuvy which is to 
539 be supplied is to be understood of the whole sex. But in Jno. xvi. 32 tva 
oKopricOAre Exacros eis 7a tdva, the Plural verb is not the immediate pred- 
icate of €xacros, but é€xacros is annexed to the Plural as explanatory, as 
in Acts ii. 6 jKovov éis exaotos 7H idia duadéxtw, Rey. xx. 13 (v. 8) 1 Pet. 
iv. 10; Acts xi. 29; see Hes. scut. 283; Aelian. anim. 15,5; Var. Hist. 
14,46; Wesseling, Diod. Sic. IT. 105 ; Brunck, Aristoph. Plut.784; Jacobs, 
Achill. Tat. p. 622. Similar to this is Acts ii, 12 and 1 Cor. iv. 6 wa pay 
els trép TOU &vs Puvototade Kata Tod érépov. On the other hand, in 
Acts ii. 3 a suggestion of the Singular subject for éxafie (for éxaficayr is 
obviously a correction, to conform to &éP6ycav) is contained in ef eva 
exaotov avToav. Other instances of a transition from the Plur. of a verb 
to the Sing. have been collected by Heind. Plat. Protag. p. 499 ; Jacobs,. 
Aelian. anim. II. 100. 
Collectives have influenced only the gender of the Pred. in Luke x. 13 
i é€v Tipo Kat wave eyernOnoav ai dvvapets ... waAat av ev oakKKw Ka %- 
p-evoe (the inhabitants) perevonoar. 
Note 1. Some have thought that a preceding Sing. verb construed with 
a (Mase. or Fem.) Plural Subject (the schema Pindaricum, Mtth. 766; 
Hm. Soph. Trach. p. 86) occurs in Luke ix. 28 éyévero ... dset Hepat dxTo. 
But éyévero is to be taken by itself, and wset qépar dx7d as a detached 
expression of time inserted parenthetically, see § 62, 2. On the other 
hand, in Luke ix. 13 «ioiv is not construed with wAéov, but the latter is an 
unconnected insertion (cf. Xen. Anab. 1, 2,11), and cioiy belongs to dprou. 
That the Imperat. aye, which is nearly a pure interjection, is connected 
with a Plural subject without disturbing the construction, in Jas. iv. 13 
dye viv ot Aéyovres andy. 1 aye viv ot tAovVcrot, is obvious. This 
usage is frequent in Greek prose authors, e.g. Xen. Cyr. 4, 2, 47 ;_ 5, 3, 4; 


§58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 517 


_ Apol. 14; cf. Alberti, observ. on Jas. iv. 13; Palairet, observ. p. 502 sq. ; 
Wetsten. N. T. II. 676; Bornem. Xen. Apol. p. 52 (similar to which is 
the Latin age, Hand, Tursell. I. 205). Likewise pépe is so used Himer. 
orat. 17, 6. 

Note 2. Here may be introduced also a remark, in passing, on the 
usage according to which a Plural verb and pronoun are employed by an 482 
individual speaker in reference to himself (Glass. I. 320 sqq.). The Tt x. 
communicative force is still manifest in Mark iv. 80 ras édpormocwperv 
tyv Baorelay tod God 7 ev Tin aityv wapaBoAn O@pmev; Jno. iii. 11. It 
occurs much more frequently in the Epistles (as among the Romans scrip- 
simus, misimus), where the author speaks in his apostolic character, as in 
Rom. i. 5; cf. vs. 6 (otherwise explained by van Hengel, Rom. p. 52), 
Col. iv. 3 cf. the immediately following dédeua, Heb. xiii. 18 cf vs. 19; 
Gal. i. 8. Only it is necessary to distinguish from this usage the case in 
which the writer really includes other persons, though it may be difficult 
in particular instances to specify when and what persons he means besides 
himself, and at any rate that cannot be determined on grammatical grounds. 540 
In Eph. i. 3 ff. and 1 Cor. iv. 9 the Plural proper is undoubtedly used. 459 
As to Jno. xxi. 24 see Mey. (In 1 Cor. xv. 31 according to the reading 6th ed. 
Kad yuéepav arobvycKkw, vy THV Huerépav Kavxynow, Hv éxw, the Sing. and the 
Plur. would be used together ; but tyuerépav [which also Cod. Sin. gives ] 
is here unquestionably to be preferred.) 


5. Such sentences as the following are not to be regarded as 
instances of grammatical discord between the Subj. and Pred. : 
Matt. vi. 34 adpKetov 7H Hepa 4 Kaxia adtis, 2 Cor. ii. 6 ixavov 
T@ ToLoUT@ 1 emiTyuia avtn. The Neuters here are used as sub- 
stantives: a sufficiency for such a one is, like triste lupus stabulis 
(Virg. ecl. 38,80) a sad thing for the folds, (Ast, Plat. polit. p. 418; 
Hm. Vig. p. 699). Instances in Greek authors are: Her. 8, 36 
aodov 7) TpopnOin, Xen. Hi. 6, 9 6 worewos hoBepor, Diog. L. 1, 98 
kanrov novyia, Xen. M. 2,3,1; Plat. lege. 4, 707 a.; Plut. paedag. 
4,8; Lucian. philops. 7; Isocr. Demon. p.8; Plat. conviv. p. 176d. ; 
Aristot. rhet. 2, 2,46 and eth. Nic. 8,1,3; Lucian. fug.13; Plut. 
mul. virt. p. 225 Tauchn. ; Aclian. anim. 2,10; Dio Chr. 40. 494 ; 
Sext. Emp. math. 11, 96. Cf. Georgi, Hierocr. I. 51; Wetsten. 
I. 3837; Kypke, obs. I. 40; Fischer, Well. III. a. p. 810sq.; Elmsley, 
Kurip. Med. p. 237, ed. Lips.; Held, Plut. Timol. p. 867 sq.; Kiihner, 
Gr. II. 45; Waitz, Aristot. categ. p. 292. In Lat. ef. Ovid. amor. 
1,9, 4; Cic. off. 1,4; famil. 6, 21; Virg. eclog. 3, 82; Aen. 4, 
569; Stat..Theb, 2, 399; Vechner, Hellenol. p. 247 sqq. (As to 
the rhetorical emphasis sometimes involved in this use of the 
Neuter, see Dissen, Demosth. cor. p. 896.) 


483 
Tth ed. 


541 


460 


6th ed. 


518 § 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 


Of a different sort, but also deserving of notice, is the construction in , 
1 Pet. ii. 19 rotro yap xapis ; cf. rovrd éorw dvdpvynois Demosth. and upon 
it Schaefer appar. V. 289; Herm. Lucian. conscr. hist. p. 305. 

6. If the Subject, or the Pedicate, or both, be compound (Mtth. 
760), the grammatical form of the Predicate is determined accord- 
ing to the following rules: 

a. If the Subject is composed of the 1st Person and 3d. the verb 
is put in the Ist Pers. Plur., as Jno. x. 30 éyw cal o tratnp & éo per, 
1 Cor. ix. 6 1%) pévos éyo kai BapvaBas ot« éyopev é£ovciar ete. 
(1 Cor. xv. 11); Matt. ix. 14; Luke ii. 48 (Hurip. Med. 1020); 
but in Gal.i. 8 we find éav jets 7) ayyeros €& ovpavod evayyediGyTrat, 
the latter Subject being regarded as the more exalted, Isae. 11, 10. 
When, on the other hand, to the 2d Pers. is annexed a 3d, the 
former receives the preference as the more important, and the 
verb (which precedes) is put in the 2d Pers., as in Acts xvi. 31 
awlion av Kal 6 oikds cou xi. 14. 

b. When the several Subjects Sing. are of the 3d Person, or are 
impersonal objects, 

a) the Pred., if it follows, is regularly put in the Plural, as in 
Actsiii. 1 Iérpos xa Iwdvyns avéBacvor, iv.19; xii. 25; xiii. 46; 
xiv. 14; xv. 85; xvi.'25; xxv. 18; 1 Cor. xv.-00 > slpeeee 
and its Gender is Masculine when there is a Masc. among the 
Subjects, 2 Pet. iii. 7. An adjective belonging to them all agrees 
sometimes only with the first or the principal Subject, as in Acts 
v. 29 avoxptOets Ilétpos cat ot arrdotoXo eizrav ; in the opposite 
case, Acts iv. 19, the Adj. is in the Masculine when the nouns are 
of different sex, as Acts xxv. 13 Aypiraas kat Bepvikn xativTnoap 
.acTacdmevor Tov PHatov, Jas. ii.15. When the disjunctive 
7 is used, a Singular Pred. also follows several Subjects, as in Matt. 
¥. £3.3 Xi, 22 Vues ature iens 

8B) if the Pred. precedes, it is put either in the Plural, in case 
the author had in mind a plurality of Subjects, Mark x. 35 qpos- 
mopevovtat avT@® “LaxwBos cai "Iwavyns, Jno. xxi. 2, hence with 
kal... kal or te... kat Luke xxiii. 12 éyévovto pirat 6 te [lida tos 
kai o “Hpwdns (Actsi.138; iv. 27; v. 24; vill. 6), Tit. 2am 
MEMLAVTAL AVT@V Kal O VOdSs Kal 17) cuvEidnots; OY in the Singular, if 
the Subjects are to be conceived separately, 1 Tim. vi. 4 é& ap 
yiverat POovos, épis, BAaodnuiae etc. Rev. ix. 17 (Thue. 1,47; Plat. 
Gorg. 503 e.; 517d.; Lucian. dial. mort. 26,1; Quint. insti 
4, 22); 1 Cor. xiv. 24 éap eisérOn Tis amuatos 1) (duaTns (so com-. 
monly when there is a disjunction by 7 1 Cor. vii. 15; 1 Pet. 


* 


§58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 519 


iv. 15); Acts v. 88; xx. 4; 1 Cor. vii. 34; or only the first Sub- 
ject, usually as the principal one, is specially taken into consider- 
ation, Jno. ii. 2 éxAnOn (Kal) 6 Incods cai oi waOnral avtod, iv. 53; 
viii. 52; xviii. 15; xx. 3; Acts xxvi. 30; Luke xxii. 14; Matt. 
xii. 8; Philem. 23; Rev.i.8; xii. 7, etc.; Plat. Theag. 124 e. ; 
Pamssoeis,o; 9, 36,1; D.S8. exc. Vat. p. 25; Mdv.S. 3f. In 
such case a predicate participle or adjective is put in the Plural, 
as in Luke ii. 83 qv 6 watnp avtod Kal 7) pontnp Savyafortes, Rev. 
viii. 7. Cf.,in general, Herm. Vig. p. 194; d’Orville, Charit. 497; 
Schoem. Isae. 462. When the Subjects are connected by 7 Greek 
authors usually employ the Plural of the verb, cf. Porson, Eurip. 
Hecub. p. 12, Lips. ; Schaef. Melet. p. 24 ; Schoem. Isae. p. 295 
(exactly as after dAXos dAX@ and the like, see Jacobs, Philostr. 
p. 877). -The distinction which Matth. Eurip. Hec. 84; Sprachl. 
II. 768 set up, is not perceptible, at least in the N. T. (The Sing. 542 
is used quite regularly in the following arrangement, e¢ dé rvedua 
EXdAnoEV AUTO 4 ayyedos ... Acts xxiii. 9.) 


By means of this construction very decided prominence is imparted to 484 
one subject out of several in Jno. ii. 12 xaréBy eis Kadapvaodp airs kai ot Tth ed. 
pabyrat avrod, iv. 12,53; Luke vi. 8; viii. 22; Acts vii. 15, and the pro- 
priety of using the Singular Pred. here is obvious. ‘This mode of expression 
is of frequent occurrence in Hebrew (Gesen. Lehrg. 722), and (even in 
the form atros re kai or kai aitos kat Ruth i. 3, 6) is not rare in Greek 
authors, Matth. Eurip. Iphig. A. 875; Weber, Demosth. 261; Fr. Mr. 

p- 70, 420; cf. Demosth. Euerg. 688 a. ei dvopet éxi TladAadiw airds Kat 7 
yoviy kal 7a radia etc. Alciphr. 1, 24 os av exoune odlerPar adros Kal ) yuv7y 
Kal Ta TaLola. 

7. When several Subjects or Predicates are united in a single 
proposition, the copulative particle is, according to the most simple 
construction, put before the last; whereas the disjunctive 7 must 
stand before each of the successive words, as in Matt. vi. 31 ré 
hayowev 7) Ti Timpev 1) TL TepiBarwpeba ; Luke xvili. 29 d9 adjxev 
OiKlay 7) yuvaiKka 7) adeAdovs 7) yoveis 7 TExva. Even the copulative 
is sometimes used in this manner, as in Rom. ii. 7 tots d0€av Kat 
Tiny Kal apOapolay Entodot, Xi. 383; xii. 2 (Lucian. Nigr. 17), see 
Fr. Rom. Il. 553. When such a series of words is introduced by 
as, this particle is used but once, at the beginning; in 1 Pet. iv. 15, 
on the other hand, the repetition of &s before adXotpioeTicKoTros 
separates this predicate from those that precede, and gives it inde- 
pendent prominence. The connecting particle is thus not unfre- 461 
quently repeated before each word of a whole series (polysyndeton), 6th od 


548 


485 
Tth ed. 


¥ 


590 § 58. ‘THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 


a usage which is partly to be considered as merely an imitation 
of the Hebrew mode of expression (Ewald, krit. Gr. 650) Matt. 
xxiii. 23; Rey. xvii. 15; xviii. 12; xxi. 8, and partly seems to 
arise from an effort to secure due attention to the import of each 
word, as in Rom. vii. 12 7) €vtod ayia Kai dixaia Kal ayabn, ix. 4 
ov 7 viobecla Kat 7 Sofa Kat at diabjKat Kai 7 vopobecia Kal 1 
Aatpela Kai at errayyediat, Luke xiv. 21 tovs wtwyovs Kal avamrnpous 
kai tuprovs Kal ywrovs eisayaye, | Pet. i. 4; ili. 8; Jno. xvi. 8; 
Acts xv. 20,29; xxi. 25; Phil. iv: 125) Revii.19); voi? : tye 
12; viii. 5; Philostr. Apoll. 6, 24; D. 8. exc. Vat. p. 32. So in 
particular with proper names, Actsi.13; xiii. 1; xx. 4; Matt. 
iv. 25; Jno. xxi. 2. On the other hand, the connective of the 
different parts of a single sentence is entirely omitted (asyndeton), 

a. In enumerations, 2 Tim. iil. 2 écovtas ot dvOpwrot diravtot, 
hirapyupor, arafoves, vrrepnpavot, PrAacdynuos etc., 1 Cor. iii. 12 
ETrouKodomel Eml TOV Oepyédtov ypvaov, apyupov, AiBovs Tipiovs, Evra, 
xoptov, kardunv, 1 Pet. iv. 8; Heb. xi. 87; 1 Tim. i. 10; iv. 13, 
15 (Cic. fam. 2,5; Attic. 18,13); Rom. 1. 29 if si) She 
iii. 5; Jno. v. 3; 1 Cor. xiii. 4-8; xiv. 26 ; 2 Cor. iv. 8 f.; Jas. vy. 63 
1 Pet. ii. 9; Matt. xv. 19 (Col. iii. 11 is peculiar). Similar are 
Demosth. Phil. 4 p. 54a. and Pantaen. p. 626 a.; Plat. Gorg. 
p- 508 e.; 517d.; rep. 10 p. 598 c¢.; Lycurg. 86,2; Lucian. dial. 
mort. 26, 2; Heliod. 1, 5. 

b. In parallelisms and antitheses, which thus receive additional 
prominence, 2 Tim. iv. 2 ériotnOs eveaipws axaipws (like nolens 
volens, honesta turpia, digni indigni, dy «atm, Aristoph. ran. 157 
avopav yuvarkov, Beier, Cic. off. 1.185; Kritz, Sall. I. 55; If. 828), 
1 Cor. iii. 2 yadda tpuds erotica, ov Bpwpa, vii. 12; Jno. x. 16; 
Jas.i.19. Yet asyndeton in such cases is not necessary, Col. 1.8 ; 
1 Cor. x. 20; cf. Fr. Mr. p. 81 sq. who, however, has drawn a 
distinction between the two modes of expression which seems to 
me too subtile. 


When some of the Subjects are in the Plural, the verb following is put 
in the Plural, Acts v.17, 29. This, however, seems not to be indispensable, | 
Diod. S. 20, 72 ddaxpva kat denoes Kat Opnvos éEyéveto ovuhopyrds, Xen. 
rep. Ath. 1, 2. 

Note. When several substantives either in the Subject or the Predicate 
are connected by xai, the first sometimes denotes an individual compre- 
hended in the second as its genus, as Zevs xai Oeot. After the second, 
therefore, Aourot was supplied; but the intention of the expression is to 
give prominence to the individual as the principal subject, as in Acts y. 29 


§58, THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 521 


& Térpos xat of drdorodor (Theodoret. III. 223; see Schaef. Sophocl. II. 
314, 335), i. 14; Mark xvi. 7; Matt. xvi. 14 (yet see Mey. in loc.) ef. 
Mark x. 14. 

This schema kar’ é€oxyv (Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 221) is an established idiom 
in Greek authors, cf. Plat. Protag. p. 310d. Zed Kai Oeot (Plaut. capt. 
5, 1,1; Jovi diisque ago gratias), Liad. 19, 63 “Exrops kat Tpwoi, Aeschin. 
Timarch. p. 171 c. SoAwv éxetvos, 6 tadatds vopnobérns, kat 6 Apdkwv kat ot 
KaTa TOS Xpovous eketvous vowoGéra, Aristoph. nub. 412 (Chrysippus et 
Stoici Cic. Tusc. 4, 5, 9), see Ast, Theophr. char. p. 120; Stallb. Plat. 462 
Protag. p. 25. On Eurip. Med. 1141, which Elmsley adduced in support ‘th ed. 
of this idiom, see Hm. Med. p. 592 ed. Lips., besides Locella Xen. Ephes. 
p- 208. (Of a different yet kindred nature is the Latin phrase exercitus 
equitatusque, Caes. b. gall. 2, 11.) 


8. If two predicative verbs have a common object, and both 
verbs govern the same case, the object is expressed only once, as 
in Luke xiv. 4 facato avtov Kai aréXvaev, Matt. iv. 11. In Greek 
authors, too, the object is regularly but once expressed even when 
the verbs govern different cases, Krii. 227. In the N.T., when 
the verbs govern different cases, the object is usually repeated in 
the form of a pronoun, as in Luke xvi. 2 dwvycas avrov eirev atTo, 
yet cf. Acts xiii. 3 éviévtes Tas yetpas avtots amédvoav, Eph. v. 11 544 
pn ocvyKowwvelte Tois Epyos Tots akaprrols, waddov dé €déyyere, 

2 Jness. iii. 15; 1 Tim. vi. 2, see § 22, 1 p. 143. 

9. Of the three constituent parts of a proposition, the subject 
and the predicate are indispensable; but the simple copula is im- 
plied in the mere juxtaposition of the subject and predicate: 6 @eds 
codés (which in Greek can only mean, God is wise). The same 
holds also when the subject and the predicate are extended, as in 
Heb. v.13 ras 0 wetéeywv yadaxtos atrecpos Aoyou Sixatoavyns, 2 Cor. 

i. 21; Rom. xi. 15; see § 64,2. But as the predicate is usually 
blended with the copula, so the subject may be implied in the 486 
copula, or in the blended copula and predicate. This takes place, 
independently of any special context, 

a. When the verb is in the Ist or 2d Pers. (where the subjects 
are conceived as present, Mdv. p. 6) usually, as in Jno. xix. 22 6 
yeypaha, yéypadha, Rom. vill. 15 ov« éraBere mvedua Sovdrclas, as 
here even the pronouns éy#, cv are expressed only when emphasis 
is intended, see § 22, 6. If now the name of the subject be 
annexed to the pronoun of the 1st or 2d Pers., as in Gal. v. 2 éy@ 
ITatnXos Neyo vyiv (ph. iii. 1; Rom. xvi.22; 2 Cor.x.1; Philem. 

19; Rev. i.95 xxii. 8, etc.), Gal. ii. 15 spuets puoes “Iovdaios ... 
66 


592 § 58, THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 


eis Xpiot. “Ino. émuctevoapev (2 Cor. iv. 11) Luke xi. 39, the 
adjunct is in apposition. | 

b. When the verb is in the 3d Pers. (impersonally), and then 

a) a Plur. Active is used, if merely (acting) subjects generally 
are meant (Mdv. 8.7); Matt. vii. 16 uate cudréyoucw amo axav- 
Gav aoradpudjv ; do they (people) gather etc., does one gather ete. 
Jno. xv. 6; xx. 2; Mark x.13; Acts iii.2; Luke xviit2aneeeeee 
xii. 6. See Fischer, Weller. III. I. 8347; Duker, Thucyd. 7, 69; 
Bornem. Schol. p. 84. 

£8) a Sing. Active, when no definite subject is meant (Mdy. 
S. 7) of which the verb is predicated, but only the action or con- 
dition is designated as a fact: ves, Bpovtrd (Jno. xii. 29 Bpovrn 
ywerar) vt rains, etc. (cf. Germ. es ldéutet), 1 Cor. xv. 52 cadmice 
there will be a sound of trumpets, also 2 Cor. x. 10 ai émrictonai, 
dnai, Bapetar, its said (Wisd. xv. 12). Yet, according to the 
concrete conception of the Greeks, this idiom may, strictly, be 
elliptical : tec, Bpovra Zevs (Xen. H. 4, 7,4), carrice o cad- 
muyxTns, like the avayvwceras of the orators, see § 64, 8. On (the 
parenthetical) gyno, not infrequent in Greek authors, see Wolf, 
Demosth. Lept. p. 288; Wyttenbach, Plut. mor. IJ. 105; Boisson. 

463 Eunap. p. 418, (in Latin ¢nquit, art is similar, see Heindorf, Horat. 

Gih el. sat. p. 146; Ramshorn, Gramm. 8. 383). 

545 vy) More frequently, however, in such impersonal sense a Sing. 
Passive is used (Mdy. S. 8), as in 1 Cor. xv. 42 ovreipetar ev hOopa, 
eyelpetas év apGapoia (see v. Hengel in loc.), 1 Pet. iv. 6 ets rodTo 
Kal vexpois evnyyertcOn etc., Matt. vii. 2,7; v. 21, etc. This form 
is connected with the 3d Pers. Plur. Active in a parallelism in 
Luke xii. 48 & €600n wodv, odd EntnOnoetar Tap avTov, Kal @ 
TapéJevto TOV, TEpLaOTEpoY aiTnoovoLW avTov.! | 

The forms of quotation, Aéyer 2 Cor. vi. 2; Gal. ili. 16; Eph. iv. 8 ete., 
dyoi 1 Cor. vi. 16; Heb. viii. 5, eipnxe Heb. iv. 4 (cf. the rabbinic “Va5x4, 
see Surenhus. BiBr. caraAX. p.11), paprupet Heb. vii. 17 (ete 1 Cor. xv. 27), 
were probably never intended by the N. T. writers to be taken imper- 

487 sonally ; but for the most part the Subject (6 Geos) is directly or indirectly 

ithed, contained in the context. In 1 Cor. vi. 16 and Matt. xix. 5, however, in 
connection with dyoi and etzev there is an apostolic ellipsis (of 6 Qeés). 
Lastly, in Heb. vii. the best authorities [Sin. also] give paprupetrat 

There is nothing at all impersonal in Jno. xii. 40 (one acquainted with 


1Tt cannot, however, be inferred from this that the 3d Plural Active strictly has a 
Passive sense (as in Chald., see my Gram. § 49), for even in Luke xii. 20 daatrotow 
may be taken concretely ; see Bornem. in loc. 


§ 59, EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 523 


the Scriptures easily supplies 6 @eds), 1 Cor. xv. 25 (67 scilicet Xpiords 
from airov), Rom. iv. 3, 22 émicrevoev “ABp. 7d Ded Kal eoyicOn aire «is 
dixarocvvyv sc. TO murrevoot from ériotevo., Jno. vii. 51 édav po) dxovon where 
6 vopos is to be repeated, which is personified as a judge; in 1 Jno. v. 16 
from airjoe the word airovpevos (Beds) might be supplied as the Subject 
of dwore (Liicke) more suitably than airév; lastly, in Heb. x. 38 éav 
troareiAnra: it would perhaps be most simple to educe the general term 
avOpwros from 6 dikatos. 

The Predicate is involved in efvac when it signifies extstere, Matt. 
xxiii. 30 ef nuela ev Tals Hpepats TOV warépwr etc., Jno. vill. 58; Rev. xxi. 1 
9 OdXacoa ovx éoTw ért. In this sense adverbs are then annexed for closer 
specification in 1 Cor. vii. 26 kaddv dvOpu7w 7d ovTws civan 


§59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE IN ITS SUBJECT AND 
PREDICATE: ATTRIBUTIVES, APPOSITION. 


1. The Subject and the Predicate of a proposition may be ex- 

tended in a great variety of ways by adjuncts: And first of all 
attributively, most commonly by means of adjectives, see no. 2. 
Personal nouns in particular which denote office, character, etc., 
receive, with little extension of signification, general personal 546 
attributives in the substantives av@pw7ros, avnp, yurv7 etc. (Mtth. 
967) Matt. xviii. 23 @yown ... avOpor@ Bacrre?, xiii. 45; xx. 1; 
“xxi. 38 (Iliad. 16, 263 av@pwrros oditns, Xen. Cyr. 8, 7,14; Plato, 
Gorg. 518 c.); Acts iii. 14 yrjcacbe dvdpa hovéa yapicOijvar vpiv, 
i.16; Luke xxiv. 19 (Plat. Ion. p. 540d. avnp otparnyos, Thuc. 464 
1,74; Palaeph. 28,2 dvip adusevs, 38,2; Plat. rep. 10, 620 b.; Xen, bth ed 
Hi. 11,1; see Fischer ind. ad Palaeph. sub dvxp, Vechner, Hellenol. 
p- 188. Cf. on the Hebrew idiom, my Simonis p. 54.). On the 
other hand, in 1 Cor. ix. 5 yuvaixa is to be taken predicatively ; it 
would be wrong, also, to refer to this head passages in which the 
attributive is strictly an adjective, as in Actsi. 11; xvii. 12; xxi. 9 
(Nep. 25, 9); Jno. iv. 9. In the addresses dvdpes “Iopanriras 
Acts li. 22, dvdpes “A@nvaios xvii. 22; xix. 35 the emphasis lies on 
avopes, and renders the address one of respect (cf. Xen. An. 3, 2, 
2). Similar forms of address are frequent in the Greek orators. 

2. Adjectives (and participles) annexed to substantives attrib- 
utively to supplement their meaning regularly stand after them, 
Luke ix. 87 cuvivrncev adt@ dyAos Todds, Rev. xvi. 2 éyéveto EXxos 488 
Kakov Kat Tovnpov, Matt. iii. 4; Jno. ii. 6; 2 Tim. iv. 7 tov ayava Tthed, 
Tov Kadov nyovcpuar, Luke v. 36 ff.; Phil. iv. 1; Rev. vi. 12, 13, 
since the thing itself presents itself to the mind before its Predi- 


524 § 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 


tel 


cate. When, however, the adjective is to receive any degree of 
prominence, as directly or indirectly antithetical, it is put before 
the substantive ; and this is peculiarly frequent in the didactic style: 
Matt. xiii. 24 @pworw0n 7) Bacirela TOV ovpavov avOpdr@ aTeElpavTt 
Kadov omréppa (Vs. 20 éotreipev Fda), Luke viii. 15 To (arecov) eév 
TH Karyn yn (vss. 12, 18,14); Jno. 11.10 mparov tov Kaddy oivov 
TlOnow, Kal 6tav weOvabGcw, TOTE TOV EXdaow (Rom. i. 23; xiii. 3; 
Mark i. 45; Matt. xii. 85); 1 Cor. v. 6 67t pixpa Son Orov TO 
dupawa Cuomot (Jas. iii. 5); 1 Pet. iv. 10 Exacrtos Kalas éraBev 
Vaplopa els EaVTOUS AUTO StaKOVOoVTES MS KaXol oiKovomor (the KaKot 
oix. do not do so), Heb. x. 29 (cf. vs. 28); viii. 6; Rom. vi. 12 
py BacirevéTo } dpaptia év TO OvnT@O tuav cwHpate (just because 
the capa is Ovntov, it would be absurd to allow such dominion), 
2 Pet. i. 4; Mark xiv. 6; Heb. ix. 11,12 1Tim. 7. 09 ¢ssiee 
v. 7; 2 Cor. v.1; 1 Pet. iv. 10,19. Hence in the apostolic dic- 
tion Kawn Kticts, Kawos advOpwrros, and for the most part 7) Kavvi) 
dvaOnxn. But even the adjective put after the substantive may be 
emphatic when made prominent by the article, Jno. iv. 11 zoey 
éyers TO Bdwp TO Cov; x. 11 éy@ eis 0 wousny oO Kados, or when 
placed at the end of the sentence, as in Mark ii. 21 ovdeis ... ere 
pare. emt (watiov mada.ov, Jno. xix. 41; Mark xvi. 17 yAwooas 

547 AaAnoovet Kawvais. In one and the same verse we find an adjective 
preceding and another following the substantive, Tit. ill. 9 wwpas 
CnTinoels ... waxas vopuixds. In general, it must not be forgotten 
that it often depends on the writer whether he will emphasize the 
adjective or not. Thus in Jno. xiii. 84; 1 Jno. ii. 7, 8 xawjv 
évroAnv might have been put in distinct antithesis to the old com- 
mandments, but the Apostle says évtoAny Kxavyv, 2 commandment 
which is new. In Rey. iii. 12 we find rs xawfs “Iepove. but xxi. 2 
‘Iepove. caw; and in 2 Pet. iii. 13 Kaiwovs ovpavovs Kal yhv Kawwyp, 
it was sufficient to emphasize the adjective by position merely the 
first time. In Acts vii. 86; Heb. xi. 29 we find épv@pa Oaracca, 
but in the Sept. frequently @adacca épvOpa. 


When two or more adjectives connected by xa belong to one substantive, 

they are put before or after it, in accordance with the preceding distinc-» 
465 tions, as in 1 Tim. ii. 2 (va jpepov Kai povyvov Biov dicyopev, Matt. xxv. 21 
bth ed. SodA€ dyabe Kat moré, Luke xxiii. 50. dvip dyabos Kai dixatos, Acts xi. 24; 
Rev. iii. 14; xvi. 2. Such arrangements of words as in Matt. xxiv. 45 

5 murtds SodAos Kal ppdviwos, Heb. x. 34, are to be accounted for by the 
circumstance, that the writer afterwards introduces a second adjective to 
complete the sense, or has reserved it for the end of the sentence for the 


sake of force. 


§59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 525 


3. Two or more adjectives regularly are connected by «ai and 
joined to their substantives, 1 Pet. i. 4 eds xAnpovopiav apGaptov 
Kal dplaytov Kal audpaytov, vs. 19; 2 Pet. ii. 14 etc. When the 
copula is omitted, it is either because the intention of the writer 
is to enumerate single qualities separately deserving of attention 
(§ 58, 6) 1 Tim. iii. 2ff. def tov eickorov averidnrtov eivat, 
unpadioy, c@ppova, koopuoy etc. Tit.i.6; ii. 4f.; Phil. ii.2; Rev. 
v.1 (Jobi. 8) see § 58,7, perhaps with climax Luke vi. 88 (Mtth. 
998); or because one of the adjectives is more closely related to 
the substantive, and forms with it as it were one notion, 1 Pet. 
1. 18 €x THs pataias tuadv avactpophs TatpoTrapacotov, Jno. xii. 3 
pupou vapoov TicTLKhS ToAUTiWoU, Where vapoos miatixn designates, 
commercially as it were, a certain sort of spikenard, which is 
then declared to be zroAvtipos, Jno. xvil. 3 Wa ywookwow oé TOV 
fovoy arnOwwov Oeov, Gal. i. 4; 1 Cor. x. 4; Rev. 1.16; ii. 12; xii. 3; 
xv. 6; xx. 11, (which is sometimes obvious from the mere position 
of the words, as in Jno. vil. 37 €v TH é€oyatn Tuépa TH pmeyadry 
Ts eopTns, Heb. ix.11). Cf. Her. 7, 23 aitos mwoddos édoita éx 
Ths Acias adnreopévos, Dion. H. IV. 2097 cuvayayovtes iduwteKxov 
ovvédpiov Tratpixov, see Mtth. 998; Dissen, Pindar. ed. Goth. 303 sq. ; 
Hm. Eurip. Hee. p. 54; Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 807; Bornem. Xen. 
Cyr. p. 11; cf. (Nep. 25, 9, 14; Cic. parad. 5, 2) Kritz, Sallust. 
Jug. 172. (When the second Predicate is a real participle, a 
connecting «ai is of course not to be expected, Acts xxvii. 6 
eup@v tAotov “AdeEavdpivoy mréov eis THY "Itadiav, Mark xiv. 14; 


Teves, |.) 


When zodvs is annexed to a substantive that already has an adjective, 
it will either be construed according to the preceding rule, as in Jno. x. 32 
moAAa Kava epya eédevga, 1 Tim. vi. 9, or written as in Acts xxv. 7 woAAd 
te Kat Papéa aitwwpara, where the word expressing the quality is made 
prominent: many and (that, too,) heavy ete. Cf. Her. 4,167 ; 8,61; Xen. 
Mem. 2, 9,6; Lys. 26, 1, see Mtth. 998. Under this head come also 
Jno. xx. 380 zoAAa kat adAAa onpeia (but xxi. 25 adda moAX\a), and Luke 
iil. 18 woAkAa Kal €repa (which is not unknown also in Greek authors, see 
-Kypke on the first passage) many and other, for which we say many other. 


4. From the natural rule, that an adjective must agree with its 
substantive in gender and number, there is sometimes a deviation, 
when the writer allows regard for the thought to prevail over that 
for the grammatical form. That is 

a. Neuter or Feminine substantives that signify persons have 
Masculine adjectives joined to them (Hm. Vig. p. 715), Rev. 


489 
Tth ed, 


548 


466 
6th ed. 


490 
Tth ed. 


o49 


526 § 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 


xix. 14 ta otpatevpata... nKxorovfe avT@... evdedupévot 
Bvocuwov Xevxov Kabapov, v.6; Eph. iv. 17,18; 1 Cor. xii.2; Mark 
ix. 26 (Xen. Mem. 2, 2,3 ai mores ... es mavoovtes, Cyr. 1, 2, 
12; 7, 3,8; Joseph. antt. 6, 11,6; cf. Liv. 7, 2; still more bold 
is Aristid. I. 267 extr. Jebb. Guida Kai crovd) tev éExatépwOev 
HeyloT@VY TOAEWV, KaXOVYTwWY TL WS avToUs), Rey. xi. 15 éyévovTo 
dovar peyddat... Néyourtes (Vv. 19 f.); iv. 8 ta tTéscapa Cwa, ev 
kal’ ev avtav éywv ava wrépuyas €E ... Kai avdravow ovK éxovow 
NMEPAS KAL VUKTOS NEYVOVTES. 

In Eph. iv. 18 écxoticpeévor does not belong to the subordinate clause 
Kaas kal Ta €Ovn, but to tuas; and 2 Jno. 4 evpynxa ex tav TéKVvwY Gov 
TepiTatrovvtTas only borders upon the above usage. 


b. Collectives (cf. § 58, 4) in the Sing. sometimes have adjec- 
tives after them in the Plural, as in Acts v. 16 cuvipyeto to 
TAGs Tov TépLE TOAEwD ‘ep. hépovTes acGevels etc. (xxi. 36; Luke 
xix. 87; cf. Diod. 8.5, 43; Xen. Eph. 1, 3; Palairet, (osans 
p- 201) ; iii. 11 cuvédpapev mas 0 Aas... ExGapfor, Jno. xii. 12; 
Rev. vii. 9; xix. 1 (Philostr. Apoll. 2,12); Luke 11. 18 wAnGos 
oTpatias ovpaviov aivovyvter Tov Geov etc. On the other hand, 
in Rey. iii. 9 TOv Aeyovtwy is not an epithet of cuvaywyjs, but to 
be taken partitively. The Sing. and Plural connected, occur in 
Mark viii. 1 wapwoddov dydov dvtos Kai wn exXovT@V, TL Paywot, 
Acts xxi. 836; cf. Diod. 8. 14, 78 tod wAnOous cuvTpéxovTos ... Kab 
Tovs piabovs mpoTepov amrartovvTwr, Virg. Aen. 2, 64 undique visendi 
studio Trojana juventus circumfusa ruit certantque illudere capto. 
Further, see Poppo Thue. I. 102 sq.; Bornem. Xen. Apol. p. 36; 
Anab. p. 854; Jacobs, Anthol. pal. 111. 811; Hm. Lucian. conser. 
hist. p. 801; Ast, Plat. lege. p. 108 sq.; Mtth. 976f. 


Noteworthy is the connection of two genders in Rev. xiv. 19 «Bader eis 
THV Anvov Tod Gvpod Tod Oeod Tov péyav, as even Tdf. reads, (Anvos is some- 
times Masc., Sept. Gen. xxx. 38, 41, Vat.).1 But in Acts xi..28 Luke 
undoubtedly wrote Ayov peyaAnv... yres, see Bornem. in loc. In Phil. 
ii. 1 all recent editors [with the exception of Lchm. and Tdf. 7th ed.] have 
substituted e¢ twa for et tus orAdyxva. 


5. When an adjective refers to two or more substantives of 
different genders or numbers, it is 
a. Usually repeated with each substantive, as in Mark xiii. 1 ide 


1 Liicke (Apokal. II. 464) wants either to read with a single Codex 10d peyddou 
(which is probably a correction), or to assume a constructio ad sensum, the writer in 
using Tov péyay having thought only of @uuds Tod Geod. Liicke himself confesses that 
the latter assumption is pretty violent and harsh. See also Matthdi’s small edition, p. 63. 


§59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 5O7 


motatot NiOou Kal Trotatrat oiKodopai, Jas. i. 17 raca docu aya 
Kal Trav Swpnua térevov, Rey. xxi. 1 ovpavdv Kawov Kal yhv Kawyp, 
meio enycts iv.) ; 1 Cor. xiii. 2; Kphvi. 215 1 Pet. 11.1; 
2 Pet. iii. 18 (8 Esr. iii. 5); cf. Aristot. Nicom. 7, 9,1; Demosth. 
pac. 23 b. Or 

b. Used only once: preceding, in the gender and number of 
the first substantive, Luke x. 1 eis waécav modu Kai torrov, 1 Thess. 
v. 23; Rey. xiii. 7; vi. 14; vii. 9; cf. Diod. 8. 1, 4 pera rorrijs 
KkaxoTrabelas Kai Kwdvvev, Dem. Con. 728a.; Plutarch. mor. 993 a. ; 
on the other hand, when placed after the substantives, it is some- 
times in the Plur. and sometimes in the Sing., and its gender is 
that of the nearest or principal substantive, as in Heb. ix. 9 dapa 467 
Te Kal Ovoiat mposhépovTat pn Suvadpevae etc. lil. 6 éay Tiyv Tappnciar Mth el. 
Kal TO Kavynpa méxpt TéXouS PEeBalav KaTadcywpev (var.), Rey. viii. 7. 550 
Of. Iliad. 2, 136 sq. ai 7pérepai 7 adoxor Kai varia Téxva elaT évi 491 
peydpo.s roridéypwevat, Thuc. 8, 63 rvO6pevos ... kal Tov StpouP- Mh et 
yidnv Kal Tas vats avweNndAVOOTA, Xen. Cyr. 7,5, 60. If the 
substantives are of the same gender, or if the adjective employed 
has not different forms to express different genders, it is usually 
expressed but once ; — with the first substantive as in Acts ii. 43; 
Matt. iv. 24; Markii. 15; Eph.i. 21; 1 Cor. xi. 30 (2 Pet. i. 10); 
Rey. vi. 15, or with the second as in 2 Cor. . 6. 


The Plural of an adjective which belongs to two substantives may 
appear to be used in 1 Pet.i.18 od pOaprots dpyupiv 7) xpvoiw édAutpdbyre; 
but @éapr. must be regarded as a substantive, and dpy. and yp. as explan- 
atory specifications in apposition to it: not with corruptible things, silver 
or gold ete. 


6. Predicative amplifications, which we introduce by as or for, 
to, are very frequent: 1 Tim. il. 7 ets 0 éréOnv ey xijpvé, 1 Cor. 
x. 6 tadta TUTO Huov éeyernOncav, vs. 11; xv. 26; Matt. i. 18; 
Jno. iii. 2; xii. 46; 2 Tim.i. 11; 1 Pet. ii. 5 avdrot ws AlOou Caves 
olxodometiabe oixos mvevpatixos, 1 Cor. ix. 5 aderdiy yuvaixa Tepia- 
yew, Rom. iii. 25 Ov mpoéBeto 6 eds iANaatHptov, Jas. v.10 vrdderypa 
AaBete ... Tos Tpodyras, Acts vii. 10; xix.19; xx. 28; xxv. 14; 
porte iuike xx-43; 1 Cor: xv. 20; 238; 2 Cor. iii. 6; 1 Jno. 
iv. 10,14 (2 Thess. ii. 13 according to the reading azrapyyv) Heb. 
i. 2; xii. 9; 2 Pet. iii. 1; Rev. xiv.4. Sometimes such a Predi- 
cate is made prominent by the comparative particle ws, as in 2 Cor. 
x. 2 Noyilopévous ds ws KaTa GapKa TepiTratobvTas, 1 Cor. iv. 1; 
cf. 2 Thess. iii. 15; 1 Tim. v. 1 f.; or the Hebraistic construction 
with eds is adopted, as in Acts xiii. 22 jryeypev tov Aavid avrois eis 


bol 
468 
6th ed. 


492 
7th ed. 


528 § 59, EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 


Baciréa, vs. 47; vii. 213 see p. 228. On making the Predicate 
precede, see § 61. | 7 

The Predicate is sometimes an adjective, as in Heb. vii. 24 azapaBarov 
exer THV Lepwovvynv, Mark viii. 17; Heb.v. 14; 1 Cor. xii. 12; Matt. xii. 13 
amekateotaby (H xelp) bys, Acts xiv. 10; xxvii. 48; xxvill. 13; Rom. 
x. 19; 1 Cor.iv.9; ix.17; Mark iv. 28; or a pronoun, as in Rom. ix. 24 
ods (oke’n éA€ovs) Kal éxddcoev Huas, Jno. iv. 28; Heb. x. 20. On the 
other hand, a Predicate is sometimes annexed to a pronoun, as in 1 Pet. 
iii. 21 6 (Vdwp) Kat buds avrizvTov viv owe 

Such Predicates are sometimes to be taken proleptically (Bornem. Luc. 
p- 89; Krii. 210), as in Matt. xii. 13 drexareoraOy tyujs ie. dste yever Oat 
by (Luke xiii. 85 var.) Phil. iil. 21; 1 Cor. i. 8; 1 Thess. iii. 13. 

7. Especially diversified are the appositive adjuncts,! which, an- 
nexed asyndetically, are intended mainly to define more closely one 
nominal (or pronominal) notion by another. But apposition is, — 

a. Synthetic, in the case of proper names which are distin- 
guished by the species or genus, or, if they belong in common to 
a plurality of persons or of objects, by a distinctive quality: Matt. 
iii. 6 év tO Iopdavyn rotay@, Heb. xii. 22 mposernrvGate Siwy Gper, 
Acts x. 32 oixia Xipwvos Bupcéws, Heb. vii. 4 dexarnv ’ABpady 
édwxev ...0 matpiapyns, Acts xxi. 89; Rey. il. 24. 

b. Partitive (Rost 484): 1 Cor. vil. 7 €xaoros idvov ever yapiopa, 
6 pe obtas, 6 b& obtws, Matt. xxii. 5; Acts xvii. 832; xxvii. 44, 
more simply in Acts ii. 6 #Kovov eis Exactos TH ida SuaréxT@ ete., 
Kph. iv. 25. 

c. Parathetic, when some characteristic of a person or thing is 
expressed: Luke xxiii. 50 “Iwond, avnp ayabos Kai dixatos, Jno. 
xill. 14 e¢ é€ym Evra tay Tovs Todas, 0 Kvptos Kal Oo dudacKanos, 
vill. 40 ; Heb. ix. 245. Acts xxi. 12.;., Jas. 145.3, Mathaiyeeee 
Rom. vii. 19; ‘cf,-1.Pet, y: 1; ,etc. 

d. Hpexegetic, when a more precise expression is added, which 
we should introduce by namely, that 1s to say: Hph.i. 7 &» 
éyouev (vs. 10) tv arrodUTpwow ... THY ahecw THY TapaTT@Ld- 
tov, 1 Pet. v. 8 6 avridicos tyadv, dvuaBoros, Eph. i. 18; ii. 15,; 
iv. 18; Phil. ivy. 183, 1-Cor.v..7;.2 Cor.ve1; -vil. 6; Roni; vag 
Jno. vi. 20; vil. 2; Mark xii. 44; Acts vii. 38; 1 Jno: v. 20; 
Jude 4; Rev. xii. 1, etc. So also after pronouns, as in Jno. ix. 13 


1 Well-considered views are contained in J. D. Weickert’s Progr. on Apposition in 
German, Liibben, 1829. 4to. Further, cf. MJehlhorn de Appositione in Graeca ling. 
Glog. 1838 (Sommer in the Zeitschr. fiir Alterthumswiss. 1839. nr. 125 f.), Rost, 
Gramm. 482 f. 


§ 59, EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 529 


ayovow avTov ... Tov Tote TUPAov, 1 Thess. iv. 3 TodTd éots OéEXnma 
tod Oeov, 6 aytacpos vuav (Xen. Cyr. 2,2,15; Plat. rep. 9, 583 d. ; 
Gorg. 478 ¢.); 2 Cor. ii. 1 Expwva ewavtd Todt, TO py... ENOEtv 
(Rost 486); Eph. i. 19 eds jpas tods meotevovtas, Rom. xiv. 13; 
Sees. d; Phil. iii. 3; Jas. i. 27; 1 Pet. i, 21; i..7.(2 Pet. 
iti. 2); 1 Jno. ii. 16; iii. 241 ete. (Bornem. Luc. p. 114 sy.) ; 
1 Cor. xvi. 21 6 datracpos TH eu yerpt IIavnov i.e. TH Yeepé wou II. 
(Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 74; Kru. 213 f.; Rost 483; cf. Cic. parad. 4, 
8; Fam.5,12; Liv.4,2; 7,40). Appositive adjuncts occur even 
after adverbs, as in Luke iv. 23 wdc év 7H matpid. cov (Aeschyl. 
Choeph. 654) ; Jas. iv. 1 woev woreuoe Kal payat; ovk évTedOev, 
€« Tov joovev etc. Mark viii. 4; Eph. i. 19; 1 Pet. ii. 7, 15. do02 

Several words may be joined by apposition to one and the same 
subject, Rey. xii. 9; xiii. 16; and so sometimes an apposition con- 
sists of several parts, 2 Thess. ii. 3sq. On the other hand, in 2 Pet. 
ii. 18 we are not (with Lchm. and Tdf.) to find in tovs ev wAavy 
avaotpepoévous an apposition to tovs odlyws amodevyovtas, but 
that second Accusative depends on amodedy. [see Huther and 
Wiesinger in loc. ]. 


An apposition occurs also in Mark viii. 8 ypav repuroe’para KAacpatwv 493 

érTa ovpioas they took up remnants, seven baskets; and in Matt. xvi. 13, ith ed. 
according to the reading tiva pe A€youow ot dvOpwrot eivat, TOV VidV TOD 
av@paz7ov; the last words would be an apposition, see Bornem. Lue. 
p- LIU. ‘To reject wé on the sole authority of Cod. B [and Cod. Sin.] 
(for versions cannot be counted here) with Fr. ['Tdf.] and others [ Lchm. 
puts it in brackets] I consider rash. Meé here may be cumbersome, but 
I cannot regard it as inadmissible: who do people say that I, the Son 
of Man,am? He himself had always styled himself the Son of Man, 
and now desires to hear what idea the people have of him as the Son of 
Man. As to other passages, in which the Dutch critics in particular 
have taken offence at such appositions and made hasty alterations in 
the text, see Bornem. diss. de glossem. N. 'T. cap. 5 prefixed to his Scholia 
on Luke. 

We must likewise refer to the head of Apposition the well-known use 469 
of adXos before a substantive, which occurs not only in Homer, e.g. Odyss. 6th ed. 
2,412 pryrnp 8 enol ovte wérutar ovd GAdAa Spuwai i.e. nor other persons 
(that is) servants, 1, 132 (cf. Thiersch, Gr. p. 588), but also in prose 
authors, e.g. Plato, Gorg. 473 c. evdapoviGopevos tro Tay ToALTav Kal TOV 


1 The personal pronoun included in a verb takes an apposition in 1 Pet. v. 1 mapakar@ 
(€ya) 6 cuumrpeoBitepos kad wdprus etc. cf. Lucian. d. deor. 24, 2; Thuc. 1, 137; Xen. 
Hell. 2, 3,42. To this head may be referred also 1 Cor. vi. 11 taird twes ire (duels, 
Tivés you, i.e. some). 

67 


530 §59, EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 


ov Efvwv and the rest (namely) foreigners, Xen. An. 5, 4, 25 of woAgurot 
6.00 Oi mavres yevomevor €udxovro Kat é€yxdvrilov tots waXrois* Kat dAa 
Sdépara éxovres, 1,5, 5; cf. Elmsley, Eurip. Med. p. 128 sq. Lips.; Jacobs, 
Athen. p. 22sq.; Kriiger, Dion. p. 189; Poppo, Cyrop. p. 186; Vle. 
Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. p. 54sq.; Zell, Aristot. ethic. p. 62. This is 
probably not to be applied to Jno. xiv. 16 kat dAAov rapakAnrov dacet butv; 
but the analogous erepos does appear to be so used in Luke xxiii. 32 7yovro 
dé kat E€repou dv0 Kkaxovpyot ov aite dvaipefjvar, where from the 
expression Jesus also seems to be called xaxotpyos (cf. x. 1 dvédegev 6 
KUplos Kal Eré€povs EBdounkovta Ovo). See Thuc. 4,67; Antiph. 6. 24. 

Abbreviation combined with apposition occurs in 2 Cor. vi. 13: ray 
avTyv advtiptcOiav mAarivOnre Kal dtpets, instead of 76 adro, 6 eoTw 
avryuoc Gia, see Fr. diss. in 2 Cor. II. 113 sqq. 

Epexegetical apposition may likewise be introduced by rotr’ éorw, as in 
Rom. vii. 18 év éuol totr éorw ev tH capi pov, Acts xix. 4; Mark vii. 2; 
Heb. ix.11; xi.16; xiii. 15; 1 Pet. iii. 20; Philem. 12. An apposition 
is annexed with emphasis by airés in Eph. v. 23 as Kat 6 Xpicrds Kehady 
THS ekkAnolas, AUTOS TWTHP TOD THparTos. 

An apposition appears to be incorporated into a relative clause in 
1 Jno. ii. 25 adtn eorly 7 erayyedia, Hv atbtos éexnyyetAato huly THY Cwny 
THY aiwveov, probably also in Phil. iii. 18 and 2 Cor. x. 13, see Mey. in 
loc., cf. Plat. Phaed. 66 c. rote... qty eorar ob erOvpodtpev ... ppovncews, 
Hipp. maj. 281 c. of wadatot éxetvor; dv dvomara peyada Néyerar ... Wirraxod 

558 Kai Biavros, ... paivovrat dexopevot, rep. 3, 402 c.; 7, 533 ¢c.; Apol. p. 41 a.; 
Lucian. Eunuch. 4. 


494 8. That words in apposition, being co-ordinated with their prin- 
ithed. cipals, agree with them in case is the well-known rule. It does 
not extend to gender or number (Ramshorn, 8. 294); since, in 
particular, a neuter (abstract) may be put in apposition with a 
personal noun, a plural with a collective singular, a singular with 
a plural, as Phil. iv. 1 aderqoi pou ayarntol ... yapa Kal orepavos 
prov, 1 Cor. iv. 18; “xv. 20';' Col. i114 ; “Phil. iv. 18} Revie 
xvi. 3 (Soph. Oed. C. 472; Eurip. Troad. 482; Plin. epp. 9, 26 
Demosthenes, illa norma oratoris et regula, Liv. 1, 20, 3 virgines 
Vestae, Alba oriundum sacerdotium, 1, 27,38; 8, 82,5), 1 Cor. 1.2 
Th exkAnoia Tov Oeod, nyvacpévors ev Xp., TH ov'on &v Kopive, 
1 Jno. v. 16 dace: avT@ Swnv, Tois awaptavovow ji) Tpos Odvarov,! 
470 cf. 1 Kings xii.10; Xen. Mem. 2, 3,2; Hi.3,4. Cf. Vig. p. 41. 
Gth ed, 


1 Bornemann’s exposition (bibl. Studien der siichs. Geist]. I. 71 ), according to which 
av7@ is referred to him that asks, and rots Guaptdvovo. is taken for a Dativ. commodi 
(he will give him life for them etc.), appears to me artificial. A’rgé cannot well be. 
referred to adeApods duaptdver dmaptiay uh mpds Odvaroy, as airecy here manifestly denotes 
intercession. 


§59, EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 531 


Still greater discordance occurs in the apposition contained in 
Col. iii. 5 veepdcate Ta wédXn ... Topvelav, daxafapciay etc., where 
the vices are placed beside the members employed in the indulgence 
of them, the results beside the instruments. See Matth.974. But 
even from the agreement of the apposition with the noun in case 
(apart from what has been established above by 1 Cor. xvi. 21), 
there are exceptions : 

a. It is a very common grammatical usage to annex the apposi- 
tion in the genitive to the noun on which it depends (Bengel on 
Jno. ii. 21), as in 2 Pet. ii. 6 mores YoSdéua@v cai Topoppas 
(Odyss. 1; 2; Thuc. 4, 46; Kri. 97, like urbs Romae, flumen Rheni 
in Latin, cf. also Hoffmann, Grammat. Syr. p. 298), Luke xxii. 1 
m €op7? TaV alvuav (2 Mace. vi. T Avovuciov éopt7), ii. 41; Jno. 
xiii. 1; 2 Cor.v.5 tov appaBava Tod mvevparos the earnest of the 
Spirtt (consisting in the Spirit), the Spirit as an earnest (Eph. 
i. 14), Rom. iv. 11 onpetov €XaBe wWepttowHns (where some au- 
thorities give 7repitouynv as an emendation), Jno. li. 21; xi. 13; 
ue + 1V, 2. KOM, Vill, 21; xv. L631 Cor. v. 8 ; 2. Cor. v.15 
Eph. 11.14; vi. 14, 16f.; Col. iii, 24; Heb. vi. 1; xii. 11; Jas. 
i. 12; 1 Pet. iii. 3, etc. Under this head comes also Eph. iv. 9 
KatéBn eis TA KaTwTEpAa (wépN) THS Ys G~INT mieann) to the lower 
parts i.e. the earth, or which constitute the earth (similar is 
Isa. xxxviii. 14 efs to thos Tod ovpavod, cf. Acts il. 19 ew TO 
ovpave avw... él ths ys Katw). The Apostle infers from avéBy 
a xkatéBn: now Christ strictly and properly came down on earth 
(and from it ascended again) ; this, contrasted with heaven, which 


5 


o4 


is here called trvos, is spoken of as a deep or lower region. Christ’s 495 
descent into Hades (to which the expression is referred in Evang, th ed. 


Apocr. p. 445) as an isolated fact cannot here be taken into 
consideration ; it would be too restricted to refer the expression 
aixpahwrevew aiyparwoiav to that. Finally, in Rom. viii. 23 also 
the interpretation of arapy7 Tob wvevpatos the Spirit as first-fructs, 
that is, of God’s gracious gifts, has not yet been conclusively 
disproved, even by Mey. and Philippi. The main argument against 
it, that the Genitive after arapyy is always (in biblical diction ? 
yet cf. Exod. xxvi. 21; Deut. xii. 11,17) partitive, is merely 
mechanical. According to this, we could never say: my jirst- 
_fruts, firstfruits of the Pentecost etc. Living languages cannot 
be pent up within so narrow bounds, cf. Fr. Rom. IJ. 175. The 
Spirit is unquestionably a divine gift, as well as cwrnpia or KA7- 
povouia, and may with perfect propriety be regarded as the first- 


471 
6th ed. 


500 


496 


Tth ed. 


582 § 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 


fruits of the gifts of God; and this view is favored by the phrase 
appaSev tod mvevpatos as Philippi is ready to admit. On the 
other hand, zvedpa to signify the fulness of heavenly gifts hereafter 
is not current in biblical usage.! As for the rest, the Genitivus 
appositionis is easily explicable from the nature of the Genitive 
(the sign of circumcision, the Genitive of the closer specification 
of a general notion), and is not unfrequent in the Oriental idiom 
(Gesen. Lehrg. 677; Ewald 579), while in Greek it appears to be 
confined to the above geographical expression (and even this is 
on the whole rare). Not one of the instances adduced from Thue. 
by Bauer, Philol. Thue. Paull. p. 31 sqq., is entirely certain.? In 
Latin, Lowever, cf. besides the expressions, quite usual in ancient 
languages but unnoticed by the moderns, verbum scribendi, voca- 
bulum silentiz, Cic..off. 2,5 collectis ceteris causis, eluvionis, pesti- 
lentiae, vastitatis rel. (i.e. quae consistunt in eluyv., pestilentia, etc.). 
b. Sometimes we find the Nominative where the structure of 
the sentence would lead us to expect a different case, as in Jas. 
lll. 8 tay yA@ooav ovdcis SvVaTat SdawacaL* akKaTagTAaTOVY KAKO), 
peat?) tov. The last words are to be regarded as a sort of excla- 
mation, and, therefore, annexed in an independent construction, 
ef. Mark xii. 40; Phil. ii. 18f. So also might Rev. i. 5 ao ’Inaod 
Xpictov, 0 waptus o muotos be taken. In Luke xx. 27 posed Oovtes 
TWeES TOV YaddovKalwv, ol avTii€yovtTes avacTacw pn eivat etc., TOV 
av7ireyovtay Would have been more precise, and nothing is gained 
by a reference to Bhdy. 8. 68 (Mey.). Moreover, the passage 
(Thue. 1, 110) adduced by Bornem. in loc. is not entirely analo- 
gous. There is, however, some similarity in Corn. Nep. 2, 7 
illorum urbem ut propugnaculum oppositum esse barbaris, where 
the gender (as in the above instance the case) is conformed to 
that, not of the substantive to which it in sense belongs, but of a 
subordinate substantive. Further, a parallel construction in the 
N.T. would be Mark vii. 19 according to the reading xafapifwv. 
On the other hand, Demosth. Aristocrat. 458 a. opa@ .. . Tis wodEws 
oixoSomiuata Kal KatacKevacpata THALKADTA Kal ToLadTA, OSTE... 
TpoTUAALA TATA, vewsotkol, cToat etc. appears to be an intentional 


1Jt would be a great mistake to consider as an apposition the second Genitive in 
Col. ii. 17 & éort oxida TOY meAAdyTwY, Td BE TGua TOD Xpiorod. The words are 
undoubtedly to be so explained as to make Xpictod a part of the predicate, and 
dependent on err : but the body is of Christ, belongs to Christ, is in, with, Christ. 

2 In the passages adduced by Mey. on Eph., as above, [1st. and 2d edns.] from Erfurdt’s 
Soph. Antig. 355 and Schaef. Apollon. Rhod. schol. p. 235, there is nothing connected 


with the Gen. apposit. 


§ 59, EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 533 


anacoluthon. And it is in general quite intelligible how even a 
word in apposition, if it is to be introduced as independent, is put 
in the Nominative without regard to the construction, — a sort 
of detached insertion. 


In 2 Cor. xi. 28 7) érusvoracis pov etc. is not an abnormal apposition to 
xXwpis Tov Tapextos — such a solecism is not to be credited to Paul, aglats 
Subject Nominative, and as such rendered prominent. 

The apposition to a Vocative stands in the Nominative in Rom. ii. 1 
® avOpwre mas 6 Kpivwv, Rev. xi. 17; xvi. 7; cf. Bar. ii. 12; Acta apocr. 
p- 51, 60; the epexegesis in these cases is not construed with the Vocative, 
but introduced independently. Cf. Bhdy.S.67. In Matt. vi. 9 the adjunct 
év Tots ovpavots could not have been annexed to zarep by means of the 


article in any other manner than it is, since the article has no Voc. form. 


9. An apposition sometimes refers, not merely to single words, 
but also to whole clauses (Erfurdt, Soph. Oed. R. 602; Monk, 
Kurip. Alcest. 7; Matth. Eurip. Phoen. 223; Sprachl. Il. 970 f. ; 
Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 228; Krii. 215) ; and the nouns of which it 


consists, in the Nom. or Acc. according to the form of the sentence, 479 
may then frequently be resolved into an independent proposition Mth ed. 


(Wannowski, syntax. anom. p. 47 sqq. 197 sq.): 

a. Substantives in the Acc. (cf. also Lob. paralip. p. 519), as in 
Rom. xii. 1 vapaxarG vas, tapacticat Ta copata bpav Ovclav 
Caoav, aylav, evapectov T@ Oe@, TV NOYLKNY NaTpeElay, i.e. 
Atis éott Noy. AaTp. qui est cultus etc., 1 Tim. ii. 6 6 d0d5 éautov 
QVTIAUTPOV UTEP TaVTWY, TO fapTUpLOV KaLpois (dios ;——and in the 
Nominative, as in 2 Thess. i. 4 ft ase judas avtovds ev buiv Kavyacbae 
év Tails €xKAnoials TOD Geod U7rép THs bTopmovaAs Yay Kal TictEws eV 
Tao Tos Siwypwots Vuav Kat Tals OAiipeowy, ais avéxyedOe, Evdevy pa 
THs Sikalas Kpicews Tov Veod etc. (cf. Sueton. Calig. 16 decretum est, 
ut dies... Parilia vocaretur, velut argumentum rursus conditae 
urbis, Curt. 4, 7,183 repente obductae coelo nubes condidere solem, 
ingens aestu fatigatis awxiiwm, Cic. Tuse. 1, 43, 102; Hor. sat. 


556 


1, 4,110; Flor. 3,21). See Eurip. Orest. 1105 ; Here. fur. 59 ; 497 


Electr. 231; Plat. Gorg. 507 d.; as to Latin, Ramshorn 296. 
Bengel incorrectly applies this usage to Eph. i. 23 76 wAnjpwna ete. 
where occurs a perfectly simple appositive relation (to cdma avo). 

b. A Neuter adjective or participle refers to the whole clause in 
2 Tim. i. 14 diapaptup. éveriov Tod Kupiov jun Noyomaxetv, es ovdED 
xpHnotwov, Mark vii. 19 cal els Tov apedpdva éxrropeverar, KaOapifov 
mavta TH Bpwpata which (namely éxzrop. eis r. ab.) purges all sorts 
of food ; yet see above, 8b. cf. § 66, 3,g. (On the other hand, 


Tth ed. 


584 § 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 


we must not with Mey. take avaxadvrropevoy in 2 Cor. iii. 14 for 
such an impersonal apposition ; it is an attributive to caduppa.) 


In Rev. xxi. 17 pérpov dv@parov is annexed as a loose apposition to 
euetpnoe TO Tecxos etc. A construction similar, but not exactly the same, 
is adduced by Mdvy. S. 23. 


10. ‘The word in apposition naturally follows the main substan- 
tive, but for the sake of emphasis is sometimes separated from it 
by several intervening words ; as, 1 Cor. v. 7 70 maoya nuav bréep 
nov étv0n, Xpiotds, Rom. viii. 28; 2 Cor. vii. 6; Heb. vii. 4; 
Stallb. Plat. Huthyd. p. 144; Weber, Demosth. p. 152; Jas. i. 7 f. 
Hi) ol€c0w 6 avOpwrros éxetvos, OTL AHpeTal Ts Tapa TOU KUpiov, avnp 
diipuyos, uxatactatos etc. we say he, a double-minded man. Rom. 
vii. 21 does not belong here; and as to 2 Cor. xi. 2 see Mey. against 
Fr. The apposition precedes, for an obvious reason, in 1 Pet. iii. 7 
al avopes TUVOLKODVTES ... WS AT0EVETTEPH TKEVEL TH yUVatKkel@. But of 
a different nature is, for example, Tit. i. 3 cat’ éritaynv Tov cwTHpos 
nav Ocov. Here the Predicate cwrnp jor is the principal noun, 
but is explained epexegetically (since elsewhere Christ is so called) 
by the appositive Geos. So also in Rom. iv. 12; 1 Tim. ii. 3; 
2 Tim.i. 10; Acts xxiv. 1; 1 Pet. ii.15; v. 8; 2 Pet. 1) (tee 
(iii. 7) ; Rey. ix.11; Jno. vi. 27; Luke ii.1; Jude4; Hence 
cf, Aeschin. ep. 6, p. 124 b.; Paus.1,10,5; Alciphr. 3,41; Dos. 
exc. Vat. p. 60. Frequently also in Latin, as in Cic. orat. 1, 18 ; 
Liv. 1, 14°10, 35°; 27,1 Caes. b. gall. 4,1, 105 oir? Soe 
Tib. 2;'Galb. 4; Otho 1; Nép. 20,1; 22, 3. 


557 Under this head come also adjectives or substantives placed at the 
beginning of a sentence, when corresponding to epexegetical apposition 

473 they herald the contents of the sentence (Krii.215f; Mdv.229): Heb. viii. 1 

bth et. ebdavov emt rots Aeyopevos ToLovTov exopev Gpxtepea (Lycurg. orat. 17, 6), 
where it is not necessary to supply éoré. Cr. ‘Rom, Vilioo.:' 1) Pet fee 


11. In conclusion, we must advert to the irregularities (sole- 
cisms) of government and apposition which occur in the Revelation 
(especially in the descriptions of visions), and which, from their 
number and nature, give the style the impress of considerable 
harshness; see, besides the well-known works of Stolberg and 


498 Schwarz (see above, p. 8), my exeget. Stud. I. 164 ff1 They are 
Tth ed. 

1 What [Hitzig (on Joh. Marcus. Ziirich, 1843. 8vo. S. 65 ff.) has collected respecting 
the language of the Revelation, serves a special critical purpose, and too much is put 
down to the account of the Hebrew element. A more moderate view is taken by Liicke, 
Apokal. IJ. 448 ff., who, however, in this particular sets too high a value on Hitzg’s 
merits. ’ 


§ 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 535 


partly intended, and partly traceable to the writer’s negligence. 
From a Greek point of view they may be explained as instances 
of anacoluthon, blending of two constructions, constructio ad 
sensum, variatio structurae, as should always have been done, 
instead of attributing them to the ignorance of the author, or pro- 
nouncing them to be mere Hebraisms, since most of them would 
be anomalies even in Hebrew, and in producing many of them 
Hebrew could have had only an indirect and incidental influence. 
But with all his simplicity and Oriental tone of diction, the author 
understands and observes very well the rules of Greek syntax, and 
even in imitating Hebrew expressions proceeds judiciously (Liicke 
S. 447). Besides, examples analogous to many of these irregu- 
larities occur in the Sept., and even in Greek authors; though 
certainly not in such thick succession as in the Revelation. In 
reference to particulars we remark : 

Rev. ii. 20 is probably to be construed thus: 6tt adets THy yuvaika 
gov ‘lefaBer* 4) NEyouca Eavtny tpodytiw Kai diddocKxer Kal TAAVG 
etc. who, while she pretends to be a prophetess, teaches and seduces 
etc. The blending of two constructions explains vii. 9 eidov, Kat 
idov dyAOs TONS... ETTATES Evwrrioy Tod Opovov ... TEpLBE- 
BrXnmEéEvovus (where the writer, in using the Nom. had /dov, and 
in using the Acc. zrepi8. had eidov, in his mind, and blended both 
constructions together, cf. iv. 4; xiv. 14; Judith x. 7; Stallb. 
Plat. Euthyphr. p. 82). In Rey. v. 11 f. jeovca daviy ayyéXov 
... Kal Av 0 apiOwos avTav pupiades pupiddwv ... réyovTes, the last 
word does not refer to pupiddes but to ayyedo. (as the words kai 
jv... pup. are to be considered parenthetical), as if the writer 
had commenced dwvrny erhnpav ayyedou etc. (Similar are Thue. 7, 
42 trois Supaxovalois ... KatamrAnEis ovK odtyn éyéveTo ... 
opavres, Achill. Tat. 6, 18 eiparjpiov tadra eivat cot doxe... 


508 


advépa TowovTov AaBodaa, Plat. Phaed. p. 8la. ovKoby ottTw pev 474 


»” > Ped 2A \ > \ > / \ ar Ra 
éyouca els TO Gpwotov avTH TO aeldes amEepyeTat TO Oeiov TE ..., of bihel. 


abikoméevyn UTapye avTH evdaipovt eivat, Thavns ... aTNNNAY- 
févn, Ostrep 5é NEyeTAL KATA TOV MEe“UNULEVaV, WS AANOas TOV NoLTrOV 
xpovov peta Oedv Sudyovaa, instead of diayovocn.) Elsewhere we 
find A€yov, Aéyovtes iv. 1; vi. 9; xi. 15 with dovy, dwvai ete., the 
reference being to the speakers themselves. Aéywy is even used 


1In Rey. xiv. 14 efdoy, kad idob vepéAn Aeveh kat em) Thy vepeAnv Kabhuevovy Suotov vig 
avOpdémov, @xwv etc., probably cabfjuevoy is not the Acc. Masc., but the Neuter used 
substantively : on the cloud something like unto a human being etc. Afterwards the 
construction immediately passes into the Masculine. 


499 
Tth ed. 


536 § 59, EXTENSION OF .A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 


quite absolutely xi. 1; xiv. 7; xix. 6, as in the Sept. correspond- 
ing to soxd Gen. xv. 1; xxii. 20; xxxviii. 13; xlv. 16; xlviii. 2; 
Exod. v.14; Josh. x.17; Judges xvi.2; 1 Sam. xv. 12; 1 Kings 
xii. 10, (and even Rev. v. 12 might be so taken). The anomalous 
apposition (§ 59, 8b.) in Rev. ili. 12 appears more strange: To 
dvoua THS TOAEWS TOD Beod pov, THS KawWhs ‘Iep., ) katTaBaivovca 
€x Tov ovpavod ... Kal TO Gvowa pov TO Kawov (where, however, 7 
KataSaivovea etc., as it cannot well be taken for a Nominat. tituli, 
interrupts the structure as a significant parenthesis, as if for avr 
éotly 7 kat.); and that also in xiv. 12 @d¢ dtropovn TeV ayiwy eoTW * 
ot TnpodrTeEs Tas évToAds etc. (i. 5), where there is an abrupt 
transition to a new sentence, somewhat as in Jas. iii. 8 77» yA@ooar 
ovdeis Stvatas avOporrav Sapacat, akaTacyeTov Kakov, MeTT? LOD 
Oavarndopov. Likewise in Rev. viii. 9 améOavev to Tpitoy TOV 
KTigpaTaV TOV év TH Oaraoon, TA éxovTa Wuyxds, ix. 14; xvi. 3 
probably the apposition is purposely inserted in an independent 
form; see besides xx. 2. In Rev. xxi. 11f. there is a repeated 
change of construction: first we find xaraBaivovcay regularly 
construed with tv vodAw vs. 10; then follows 6 dwatnp etc., as 
an independent parenthetic clause; vs. 12 reverts to rods, but 
the attributive forms part of a new sentence, éyovaa etc. Cf. Cic. 
Brut. 85 Q. Catulus non antiquo more sed hoe nostro ... eruditus 5. 
multae literae, summa... comitas etc. On the combination of 
two constructions, each of which is allowable, in xviii. 12f ; 
xix. 12, see § 63 II. 1. That in xvii. 14 is less harsh. Ini. Of. 
T® ayarrovre etc. is connected with avtoé 7 do€a etc.; the author, 
however, instead of writing cal voujcarre etc., inserts this thought 
as an independent clause. The connection of two genders in xiv.19 
we noticed above, no.4b. Still more singular is the construction 
in xi. 4 obtol eiow ai dvo édalas Kal ai SVo Avyviat ai evweTTLoY TOU 
Kuplov éot@tes (for éotHcat is manifestly a correction), v. 6 

559 Civ. 8; xiv. 1 var.); the attributives, however, are construed ad 
sensum, since the substantives denote living creatures of the mas- 
culine gender. As toi. 4 see p. 68. 


_ CInaccuracies of a different kind have been occasionally noticed in the 
previous part of this Grammar. With dddoxew twi p. 227, may be classed 
xix. 5 aivety t@ Ged. The conjunction tva is frequently in good Codd. — 
p- 289 sq. — construed with the Indic. Present, xiii. 17; xx. 3.) 


§ 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 5387 


§60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES: PERIODS.1 500 
7th ed. 
1. In continued discourse, connection between propositions is 
the rule; want of connection (asyndeton), the exception. The 475 
latter is sometimes grammatical, and sometimes rhetorical. 6th ed, 
a. Absence of grammatical connection occurs not only with 
sentences which begin new (i.e. the larger) sections, the commence- 
ment of which the want of connection is intended to indicate, as 
meerom, 1x. 1x. 1; xiii. 1; Gal ii.1; iv. 215 vi. 1; Eph. vi. 1, 
Meee nil. iv. 1,4; 1 Tim. ii.1,14; v.1; vi.1,3; 2 Tim. 1. 14; 
te 1 Pet. vy. 1: 2 Pet. tii. 1; 1 Jno. ii. 1; iv. 1f.; but also in 
uninterrupted discourse in the case of individual sentences, some- 
times in narration where mere sequence passes for chronological 
connection, sometimes in the didactic style, particularly with in- 
junctions, maxims and the like, which, although running on one 
common thread of discourse, yet present themselves as individually 
independent. The former class are of most frequent occurrence 
in John, and constitute one of the peculiarities of that writer’s 
style, cf. the oft-recurring Aéyes or eizrev adT@, atrexpiOn avTa i. 38, 
40, 42, 44, 46 f. 49,52; ii. 4f. 7,85 ii. 3; iv. 7, 11, 15, 17, 19, 
eee. 20, 04, 0051.26, 49f.; ii. 19; ili. 3, 5, 9,10, 18, 17; 
though it is not to be denied that by asyndeton (cf. xx. 26; xxi.3), 
especially where it runs through several verses, the narration gains 
much in liveliness and impressiveness (as it is often accompanied 
with the praesens historicus), Jno. iii. 3-5; iv. 9-11, 15-17; 
v. 6-8; xx. 14-18, and the grammatical asyndeton is combined 
with the rhetorical. 
Didactic asyndeton occurs in the sermon on the mount, Matt. v. 
vi. and vii., also in James, but most frequently in John (in Christ’s 
discourses and in the ist Epistle). The discourse incessantly 560 
begins anew, as it were; and in translating, it is unjustifiable to 
insert a connecting particle. Cf. Jno. ii. 7; iii. 30-33; v. 48, 45; 
Wire bi, 18; xX. 3,4, 17f.; xv. 2-24: 1 Jno. i. 6, 8-10; ii. 4, 6, 
9f.15,18f.; ili. 1f. 4-10, 18-205 iv. 4-10,12; v.1f. df 9f 
1216-19; Jas. i. 16-18; iv. 7-10; v. 1-6, 8-10; Rom. xii. 9, 
14, 16, 21; 1 Tim. iv. 11-16; v. 14, 22-24; Matt. x. 8. 
2. b. Rhetorical asyndeton, of which even Longinus 19; Gregor. 
Cor. in Walz rhet. graeci VII. II. 1211; Quintil. institut. 9, 3, 50 
sq. treat, and which is correctly classed among rhetorical figures 


1 Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik, S. 116 f. 
68 


538 § 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 


(Glassii philol. sacra I. 512 sq.; Bauer, rhetor. Paull. II. 591 sqq. ; 

501 cf. Hand, lat. Styl. p. 802),1 is naturally found more frequently in 

ithe. the epistles than in the historical books of the N.'T., but has not 
always been considered by expositors from the right point of view. 
Since it produces in general a sharp and rapid advance in the dis- 
course, it gives to the style liveliness and force. The following 

476 different sorts of rhetorical asyndeton (Bhdy. S. 448; Kiihner IT. 

bth ed. 459 f..) between sentences (for as to asyndeton within a sentence, 
see § 58, 7) may be distinguished. The connecting particles are 
omitted, 

a) When in impassioned discourse a series of parallel clauses 
are annexed to each other; particularly in a climax (Reiz and 
Lehmann on Lucian v. hist. 2 § 35), where the repetition of the 
connective would make the discourse drag. Mark iv. 39 ova, 
medhiuwoo, 1 Cor. iv. 8 75n Kekopecpévor éoté* Hdn érrrOUTHCATE, 
xopis nuav éBacirevcate, xiii. 4-8 ; xiv.26; 1Thess. v.14; 1 Pet. 
i. 17; 1. Tim. iii. 16; 2 Cor. vii. 2;..Jas. v..65 1 Petia 
Similar is Demosth. Phil. 4, p. 54a.; Pantaen. 626a.; Xen. Cyr. 
T, 1, 88; Weber, Demosth. p. 368. 

b) In antitheses, where the force of the contrast is thus made 
to strike the reader more pointedly: 1 Cor. xv. 43 f. ozreipetas év 
atysia, eyeipetas év Sof, orreipetat ev acOevela, eyelpetat ev Suvapet, 
oTeip. TOMA WUYXLKOY, eyelp. THA TrEevpaTiKor, Jas.i.19 Tas avOpw- 
Tos Tayvs els TO aKodaaL, Bpadds ets TO Aadjoat, cf. further, Mark 
xvi. 6; Jno. iv. 22; vi. 63; vill. 41, Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 144 and 
Plat. Protag. p. 52. So, in general, in the counterpoising of sen- 
tences, as Acts xxv. 12 xaicapa émukéxdynoat, em Kaicapa Tropevon, 
ef. EKurip. Iphig. Aul. 464. 

561 c) Especially when a reason or explanation is subjoined to a 
statement (Kru. p. 228), or an application or exhortation is de- 
duced from what has been said (Stallb. Plat. Alcib. 2 p. 819), 
Rew xxii. 10 yu) cdhpayions Tovs Noyous THs Tpodyteias Tod BiBrALov 
TOUTOU* O Katpos éyyus éotw, Jno. iv. 24; vill. 18; xvii. 17; Rom. 
vi..9; 1 Cor..viil. 4,15; 2:Cor,. xii, 1137 Rev. xvi. 6, 15):55aaae 
v. 8; 2 Pet. ii. 16 (Rev. xiv. 5 Var.) ; Heb. iii. 12 Brérere (ef. vss. 
7-11) pyrote éoras ev tun bwodv Kapdia Tovnpa amictias, 1 Cor. 


vi. 18; v. 7,18; vil. 23; 2 Cor. xi. 830 (see Mey.) ; Jno. xii. 85. 


1 See Dissen 2 excurs. to the Gotha ed. of Pindar ; also Hm. in Jahn’s Jahrbb. I. 54 ff. ; 
further Négelsbach’s Notes on the Iliad, p. 266 ff. As to Latin, ef. Ramshorn, 8. 514f. 
For the Hebrew, many examples (which, indeed, require sifting) are given by Nolde, 
Concordant. particul. p. 313 sqq. 


§ 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 539 


As a distinct species of asyndeton that construction deserves notice, 
which, after a declaration, appends a discussion of it by repeating 

the substantive without «ai, as in Jno. x. 11 éyo eiwe 6 romiy 6 
KANOS* 0 TOLWAY 6 KaXOS THY Yruyny avToD TiOnow bTEép TOV TpOPa- 
Tov, xv.13; 1 Cor. viii. 2. In such passages we need only supply 

in thought a OTe (yap) or ody (ésTe), in order to feel how the 
expression would thus be weakened, ef. Lys. in Nicomach. 28 ; 
Aesch. Ctesiph. 48 (Kritz, Sallust. J. 184). Lastly, the amplifica- 502 
tion of a thought is not unfrequently introduced asyndetically, as ba. 
in Heb. xi. 3. 


Clauses appended dovvdérws, the expositors, in accordance with a prev- 
alent impropriety, are fond of bringing into connection with what precedes 
by the insertion of particles, and thus the rhetorical effect of the omission 
of the conjunction is entirely overlooked, e.g. 1 Cor. iii. 17; vii. 23; Jas. 
y. 3, see Pott in loc. With similar impropriety the copyists have often 
inserted a connective. 


8. Sentences are connected with each other most simply by the 
copulative particles caé and te (negatively by ovdé), which denote 
nothing beyond mere annexation (see § 53). Hence in historical 
style, according to Oriental simplicity, the transition from one fact 
to another is often made by them, —— by «a¢ in the Gospels and the 
Acts, re (Mdv. 8. 212) being used almost exclusively in Acts; ef. 477 
foe Matt. iv. 23-25 ; vii: 25; viii. 28-25; ix. 1-4; xiii. 538-58 ; Sih ed 
Peeeeieto: i. Lf. 3° Jno... 7 f. 18-165 ii: 225 iv. 27; v. 9; 
Acts ii. 1-45; xii. 7-9, 24-26; re Acts xii. 6, 12,17; xiii. 4, 46, 
00;52; xiv. 11-18, 21; xv. 4,6; xvi. 23, 84; xvii. 2635 xviii. 4, 
ees 21 Oy rl xx. So, Ts xxv. 2$*xxvil. 5,8, 29; xxviii. 22 
In particular, after a specification of time in an independent clause 
the event is annexed by «a/, as in Mark xv. 25 jv dpa tpitn Kal 
€otavpwoav avtov, Jno. xi. 50 Hv eyyls TO Tacya Kal avéBnoav 
moAXol, iv. 35 etc. (cf. § 53,3). With the Greeks this became an 
established form when the specification of time was to be made 
prominent, see Mdy. 215 f. 

Narration is continued, however, still more regularly by means 
of the well-defined connecting particles 6é and odv (see § 55). 562 
These, since the first adds something other, different, new, and the 
second indicates the sequence, are in a loose application peculiarly 
adapted to the historical style. Hence the N.'T. writers, by an 


1 What Rost, 8.723 f., says of this re connecting clauses in Attic prose scarcely finds 
corroboration in Luke. 


503 
Tth ed. 


478 
6th ed, 


563 


540 ) § 60, CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 


interchange of cai, 5é, odv, imparted to their narration a certain 
variety, which even in the Gospels veiled the Hebraistic complex- 
ion. Of. Jno. ii. 1 («ad twice); 2 (86); 3 (Kal); 8 Cxal), 8 Ff. 
(dé) ; iv. 4 (6); 5 (ody); 6 (dé and ody) ; 389 (dé); 40 Codr) ; 
41 (kai); 42 (re); Acts xii. 1-3 (6é four times) ; 5 (ody and 6é) ; 
6 (6é) ; T (wat twice and 6é) ; 8 (dé twice and xa/) ; 9 (Kat twice 
and dé); 10 (cad twice and 6é); 11 (xa’) ; 12 (ve); 13 (de); 14 
(cai and 6é); 15 (6é three times) ; 16 (dé twice) ; 17 (6é, Te, and 
kal); 18 (dé); 19 (dé and xa’); 20 (dé twice) ; 21, 22 (dé); 23 
(6é and xa’); 24 f. (6é); xxv. 1 (ody); 2 (te); 4,5 Codv); 4, 
T-(6é), ete. 


Not much more characteristic, yet aiming at greater diversity, is the 
connection, in the historical style, effected by tore (especially in Matt.), 
era. TovTO Or Tadra (especially in John and Luke), év éxeivois rats jpépats 
etc. (in isolated cases <ira). 

The polysyndeton between clauses not purely narrative is designed to 
give them prominence as individual portions of a compound sentence, e.g. 
Jno. x. 38 trovtw 6 Ovpwpds avolye Kat Ta mpdBata THs Pwvis avtov aKover 
Kal Ta idua mpdBara hwvel Kat dvopa Kat eaye atta vss. 9, 12; cf Acts 
xill. 86; xvii. 28; 1 Cor. xii. 4 ff. 

4, The connection of sentences is more close when it is based 
on a contrast: either in general, when two sentences are jomed 
together, like an arsis and thesis, by wév... dé (Mdv. 215) or cat 

. kat (Mdvy. 212), negatively by otre ... ovre, as Acts xxii. 9 
TO pev has EHedcayTo, THY Oé horny ovK HKOVeAY, XXill. 8; xxv. 11; 
i. 5 (ef. § 58, 7); Mark ix. 13 cal’ Hrlas édijprvOev kal érrotnoav 
avt@ dca HOedov, Jno. ix. 87 see § 53,4; or when an affirmative 
sentence is opposed to a negative, or vice versa, as Jno. ili. 17 ov« 
aréateihev 6 Beds Tov vidv adtov iva Kpivn Tov KocpMoV, GAN wa 
owl) 0 kocpos, Rom. ix. 1 ddjOeav Néyw ev Xproct@, ov evSouar, 
cf. § 55, 8. 

To this form of expression (antithesis) are likewise to be referred, 

a. Comparative sentences, as Matt. xii. 40 &saep tv Iwvas ev TH 
KOLA TOD KiTOUS TpEls Huepas K. TELS VUKTAS, OUTwS ETAL O VIS 
Tov avOpwrrou év TH Kapdia T. yhs, Matt. v. 48 érecbe byels TédeLOL, wS 
0 TaTIpP LuoOV TéAELOS ert, JNO. iil. 14 KaD@s Maiats triywoerv ... 
otTaS Ubwbjvat Set, Luke vi. 31 caO@s OércTE, va ToLdow bpiv 
ot dvOpwrot... Kal bpeis Troteite avTols Opolws. 

b. Temporal sentences (see § 53,8), as Luke i. 23 ws éAnoOnoav 
at juépar... amnrOev, Acts xxvii. 1; Jno. iv. 1; Matt. xvii. 25 
bre eishrOev eis TH oiklay ... TpoédOacev, Vi. 2 STav ovv Tons 
éXenpwoovynv, fn cartions éuTrpocbEv cov, etc. 


§ 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 541 


c. Even conditional sentences (§ 53, 8) 1 Cor. ix. 17 e¢ éxav 
TodTO Tpdcow, pucOov éxw, Luke vii. 39 e¢ Hv mpodyrns, éyivwoKer 
av, Jno. vii. 1T éav tes Oédn 7d O€Anpa adtod TroLeiv, yveoerar etc. 
That these also are properly to be referred to this head, is apparent 
from the structure, elsewhere examined, that occurs in Jas. v. 18 
KaxoTravet tis €v viv, mposevyécOw, Where the conditional clause 
makes its appearance as independent: some one among you ts 
afflicted (1 suppose the case), let him pray; 1 Cor. vii. 21 dodXos 
EKANOnS, 1) Tor weréTo, cf. Jas. ii. 19 f.; Mdv. 224. Here e¢ has 
by some been unwarrantably supplied ; and it is equally inadmis- 
sible to regard the first clause as interrogative, see above, p. 285; 
ef. Bhdy. 885; Dissen, Demosth. cor. p. 284 sq. Soin Latin Terent. 
Kunuch. 2, 2, 21 negat quis, nego; ait, ajo. Heind. Horat. serm. 
1,1, 45; Kritz, Sall. II. 349. 

5. In the cases just adduced a.—c. (as well as in causal sen- 
tences) a protasis and apodosis are contrasted (Luke i. 1; v. 4; 
Matt. iv. 3; v.13; Heb. ii. 14, etc.), though the beginning of the 
latter is not in most cases specially marked, as it is in German by 504 
so— (hence sometimes it is doubtful where the apodosis begins, ‘th ed. 
as in Jas. ili. 3f.; iv. 15, etc.) ; for when oftws seems to be em- 
ployed for this purpose, or when eita, tore, and in hypothetical 
constructions adda, dé (Jacobs, Ael. anim. p. 27 sq. “praef.), apa 
(ovv? see § 63), is put before the apodosis, as in Mark xiii. 14 ; 
Semeetuiss + Jno. vu. 10; xiv 6 > xi.'163) 1. Cor. 1.23; xv) 54; 
xvi. 2; 2 Cor. xiii. 4; 1 Thess. v. 8, etc., it is intended to give 
prominence to the apodosis, — by ovrws in particular to refer again 
to the circumstances expressed in the protasis. 

It is only in comparative sentences that 

a. A ottws or cai before the apodosis corresponds often to the 
@s, ws7rep, Kalas of the protasis, Rom. v. 15; 2 Cor. xi. 3; 1 Thess. 

li. 7; Matt. xii. 40; Jno. v. 21; xv. 4,9; xx.'21 (o¥Tws is the 
most regular correlate of sep). Ovdrtws after a conditional 
clause was formerly thought to be purely pleonastic. But in Rey. 
xi. 5 oUtws means hoc modo (see the sentence preceding), and in 
1 Thess. iv. 14 it refers to the similarity of the lot of believers to 
that of Christ (amré@ave kai avéorn) ; and these instances have no 
resemblance to those adduced by Mtth. 1457. (Still less is obtws 564 
redundant after participles in Jno. iv. 6; Acts xx. 11; see § 65,9.) 479 
In the case of grouping of protasis and apodosis, the protasis is ‘th ed. 
usually repeated in a distinct form after the apodosis, so as to 
produce apparently a double apodosis, as in Rev. il. 5 petavoncor 


542 § 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 


et O€ py (weTavoeis), Epyowal cou Tay ..., €av pr) pweTavonans, Where 
the length of the sentence occasioned the repetition. This, how- 
ever, is probably not the case in Matt. v. 18, see § 65, 6, p. 612. 
6. Objective, consecutive, final, and causal sentences are con- 
ceived as distinctly dependent on, and consequently subordinate 
to, a leading clause, and are accordingly presented ii the form of 
dependent sentences introduced respectively by 870, as, by &ste, 
as (not wa, see § 53,10, 6 p. 457 sq.) also obv, dpa, by wa or 
dtras, by yap, ote etc. see § 53 (where the relation of grammatical 
dependence is sometimes expressed also by the indirect moods of 
the verb). Causal are akin to objective sentences; hence both 
are introduced by 67¢ (quod), signifying either because or that. 
Ei (like the Latin si) is so used apparently in one class of cases, 
after verbs denoting an affection of the mind, where the objec- 
tive 67¢ might have been expected CHoogeveen, doctr. partic. 
ed. Schiitz, p. 228 sq.; Jacob, Lucian. Toxar. p. 52; Mdv. 225), 
. e.g. Mark xv. 44 e@avpacey ef bn TéOvnxey miratus est si jam 
mortuus fuerit, 1 Jno. iii. 13 2) Oavuatere, et picet buds 0 Kocpos 
cf. Fr. Mare. p. 702. But 67 is employed when the occasion of 
surprise (grief etc.) is a positive matter of fact, e¢ when it hovers 
before the speaker’s mind as merely a possibility, seems to him 
doubtful, or at least is to be represented as doubtful: marvel not, 
if the world hate you (Weber, Demosth. p. 5385; Mtth. 1474 f. ; 
Rost 622). Similar is Acts xxvi. 8. Sometimes modesty or dif- 
fidence has led to the selection of this latter form of expression, 
505 just as we sometimes hear: he begged him 7/ he would not promise 
ithel. (Germ. er bat ihn, ob u.s.w.). Of. with this Acts viii. 22. 


The affinity of objective and relative sentences is illustrated in Acts 


. ~ ‘ : lal Ki Ve 
xiv. 27 dvyyyeAXov, 00a eroinoev 6 Oeds per adtav Kal OTL Hvorgev etc. 


7. a. Relative sentences still more distinctly assume a dependent 
character when they are of an appositive nature, whether more or 
less requisite to complete the sentence ; as, Matt. ii. 9 0 aarp, 
Ov eldov, Tporryev avtovs, Rom. v. 14 Addy, 6s €ots TU7TOs TOD péd- 
novtos, 1 Cor. i. 80 Xpicra, 5 eyernOn copia nuiv etc., Acts i. 2 ; 
xv. 10. But the form of a relative clause is adopted in two other 
cases: a. when the discourse, particularly a narration, is con- 
tinued by és and that is resolvable into cat obTos, as in Acts xiii. 43 
jKorovdnaavy Toddol...7@ Ilatkw cai T6 BapvdBa, olrives 
mposdarobrtes éreHov avtous etc., Acts xvi. 24 &Banop eis dudaxiy 

565 mapayyeidavtes TO Seopopvdraks ... 0s wapayyedlav Tovavrnp ete., 


§ 60. CONNECTION OF SEN'DENCES. 543 


huke x..80;5 Acts ii.3; xiii: 81; xiv. 9; xvi. 14,16; xvii. 10; 
xix. 25; xxi.4; xxii. 4; xxiii. 14; xxviii. 23; 8. when the Subject 
or Predicate is a relative sentence, e.g. Acts xiii. 25 épxerar, ob 480 
ov« etl d&vos Td bTrdSnua NOcat, vs. 48 érictevaay, boot Hoav TeTay- “ht 
pévoe eis Conv aidviov, vs. 37; Jno. xi. 3 ov dureis, acGevet, Matt. 
Reemesin, 12; Jno. i. 46; ii, 84; xv. 7; 1 Jno. ii. 5; iv. 6; 
Acts xiii. 837; Rom. viii. 25. In this case the relative clause is 
often placed before the principal, as in Jno. il. 84; xiii. 7; 1 Jno. 
ui. 17; Acts x. 15; Rom. viii. 25, or there is a reference from 
the latter to the relative clause by means of a demonstrative, as 


mamattv. 19; Luke ix, 26; Jno. v.19; 1 Jno. ii. 5. 


Not unfrequently several relative clauses are combined, as in 1 Pet. 
iii. 19-22, either as co-ordinate, as in Acts xiv. 15f.; i.2f.; i. 2f.; 
xxvil. 23; xxiv. 6, 8 (Tdf.), or as subordinate one to another, as in Acts 
xiii. 81 (Iycots) 8s &66y tots ovvavaBaow aitG... oirives viv cial 
pdprupes avrov etc. xxv. 15 f.; xxvi. 7; Rom. i. 2, 5, 6. 


b. Indirect interrogative sentences (which in classic Greek were 
marked by the special form of the interrogatives dstus, d7rotos, 
omrocos etc.), as Jno. vi. 64 Hde0 Tives eioly of un TeotevovTes, Matt. 
x. 11 éferdcare tis afwos eat, Jno. iil. 8 ovK« oidas ToOev EpyeTas 
kK. Tov uTrayet, Acts x. 18 éruvOaveto €f Xiuwv évOdade Eeviferar, Luke 
Xxli. 23 yp~avto avgyTetv mpos Eavtovs TO Tis apa ein && avTar oO 
ToUTO péAXwV Tpdcceyv, Acts xxv. 20 azropovpevos eyo... EXeyor, 
el Bovrorto Tropevec@a etc. Cf. on this Schleiermacher, Hermen. 
S. 131. 

8. We have thus far spoken of the connection of sentences 
with each other by certain single connective words, among which, 
speaking somewhat loosely, the relatives also may be reckoned ; 
but connection may also be effected by means of forms of inflection, 506 
especially the Infinitive and the Participle, in such a manner as to Tih ed. 
render grammatically the subordinate clauses constituent parts 
of the principal clause : 

a. 1 Cor. xvi. 38 rovrovs méuw ameveyKety tiv ydpw (iva 
amrevéyxwot), Mark iv. 3 €&j\Oev 6 oreipwv Tob’ ometpar, Acts 
XXvi. 16 ets TodTO HhOnY cor, TpoxEeLpicacbai ce, Phil. i. 7 dua 
ro éyeu pe ev 7H Kapdia tuas (OTL buds ev THK. Exw), Acts xvii. 2 ; 
XXVil. 9; xix. 1 éyévero ev TH Tov 'AtroNA® eivar ev KopivOy, xx. 1 
peta To Tavcacbat Tov OdpuBov ... 6 Tladdos €&fAOev.. Especially 
do Infinitives with prepositions serve to give compactness and 
roundness to sentences, and so too the Acc. with the Inf. which 


544 § 60. GONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 


usually represents an objective clause ; as, Heb. vi. 11 émvOupodper 
ExacTov Uuov THY avTHY évoeikvucbat pate 1 Tim. ii. 8 BovrNomat 


Aa apetsaitn avSpas ete. 5 44, 3, p. 321. 


566 b. 2 Cor. vii. l ravtas éyovtres érayyedlas Kabapiowpev EavTovs, 


481 


6th ed, 


Luke iv. 85 ; Acts xxv. 13 catjvtncay dotwacoépevot Tov Photon, 
Acts xxv. 1 ijctos émiBas tH érrapyla... avéBy, Luke iv. 2 Hryeto 
év TH épnuw mwetpalopmevos, Acts xii. 16 éréueve kpovav (§ 45, 
4). Particularly are participles in the Gen. abs. employed thus 
to denote accessory circumstances, local or temporal (§ 30 note, 
p. 207), e.g. Acts xxv. 13 ywepav Stayevouévwv twav Ayplrias 
kat Bepvixn xatnvtnoav, X. 9 éxeivav TH TONE eyytCovtTa@v avéBy 
ITérpos, Luke iv. 40 é0vovtos tod jAlov Tavtes ... Hryayov, ix. 42 
ETL Tposepyopuevou avTod éppnEev avTov TO Satpoviov, Mark xiv. 3 Kal 
Ovtos avtod év Bynbavia év TH oiKkla Siuwvos Tov etrpov, KataKelpévov 
avtov, 7AOev yvvy etc. And this gradually became so usual a 
mode of expression, that it was employed even when the subject 
was the same as that of the principal clause, see p. 208. Besides, 
one and the same principal sentence frequently contains several 
participial constructions co-ordinate or subordinate one to another, 
by which means the structure of the sentence is rendered more 
organic, e.g. Acts xii. 25 BapyaBas xat Yaddos wréeotpepav €& 
‘Tepovcadnp, TANpP@®oavTes THy Siaxoviav, TUMTMaparaBdrTes 
kat “Iwavyny, xvi. 27 &Eurvos yevopevos 6 decpodpvrak cal idov 
avewypmévas tas Ovpas ths pvdakhs, cTaTdpEevos paxaipayv 
nuedrev EauTov avaipeiv, vomwifwv éexmedevyévat tors Seapious, 
XXlll. 27 Tov advédpa tobTov cuvAAHMPHOEVTA tO THY ‘Iovdaiwr 
Kab wENXOVTA avapeioba IT alTav ETLTTAS TV TO OTPATEV- 
poate e€evXaunv avtov, wadar etc. Acts xiv.19; xviii. 22f; xxv. 6f.; 
2 Tim. i. 4; Tit. ii, 13; 1 Cor. xi. 4; Luke vii. 87f. 

Hence in general it must be noticed, that in this manner com- 
pound sentences receive not merely greater variety, but also a 
greater degree of periodic compactness. This latter result is 
effected still more decidedly by the blending of two independent 
propositions into one, Attraction (§ 66), for which purpose relatives 
possess very extensive aptitude (§ 24). Attraction, too, is itself 
very diversified, and occurs even in the N. T. in many forms, from 


507 the simple (as in Luke v. 9 éwi rh dypa Tov tyOvav, } cvvédaBor, 


iy 


Mthel. Acts iv. 13 émeyivwcxov avdtovs bts atv TH "Incod Foav) to the 


e 


] . R eee 8 4 ¥. > \ ¢e € = AC , 2 ‘ 
complex, as in Rom.iii. 8 t/ éte Kayo © dwaptwrdos Kpivopat ; Kab 
pn, Kabws BracdhnuotvpcOa Kai Kabds haciv twes pas Néyew, OTE 
TOLNTWMEV TA KAKG, Wa EXOn TA ayabd ; 


§ 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 545 


Note. In contrast with this intertwining of clauses stands the practice 
of forming a proposition where a simple Infinitive would have sufficed ; 
as, Mark xiv. 21 xaddv aire «i odk éyevvnOn 6 avOpwros éxetvos, 1 Jno. v. 2 
ev TovTw eyvoKapev, OTL..., Orav Tov Hedy dyardper (ii. 3), Acts xxvii. 42 
Tov oTparwwtav Povd7y éy€evero, Wa Tovs decpwrtas droxtetvwow (on the other 567 
hand, vs. 12), Rev. xix. 8. This mode of expression is not always adopted 
from a love of amplification (a peculiarity of the later language), but is 
employed sometimes to give more forcible prominence, and sometimes to 
attain a more flexible construction. 


9. By these various means of connection, the style of the N. T. 
is shaped into an organic structure which is by no means destitute 
of variety, though it is inferior in this respect to the style of Greek 
authors. In this way are constructed periods even of considerable 
length, particularly in Luke (and especially in the Acts), e.g. Luke 
i 1-3; Acts xii. 13 f.; xv. 24-26; xvii. 24f.; xx.9,20f.; xxiii. 10; 
xxvi. 10-14, 16-18; Rom. i. 1-7; 1 Pet. iii. 18-22; Heb. ii. 2-4; 
2 Pet. i. 2-7. At the same time it must be admitted that, after 
the beginning of a long period has been made, the thread of the 
arrangement is frequently broken, and the sentence terminates in 
some kind of anacoluthon or remains quite unfinished Rom. iii. 8 ; 
xii. 6-8; xvi. 25 f.27; Mark vi. 8f.; Gal. ii. 4f.; 2 Pet. ii. 4-8; 
2 Thess. ii. 3 f.; see § 63, or at least is commenced anew 2 Pet. 
_ li. 5 sq.; Eph. v. 27; Jno. viii. 53; Rev. ii. 2,9. The N.T. writers, 4892 
further, have desisted from one mode of constructing ramified ‘th ed 
sentences, in that they regularly do not incorporate quotations, 
though but of small extent, in an indirect form, but express them 
directly, and without introducing them always by 67v as an external 
_ connective or by Xéywv, as in Matt. ix. 18; xxvi. 72; Mark xi. 32; 
Pmineev.12 Jno. 1.,20:3) xxi17; Gali i. 23:5 Acts iii, 225 vs 23, 
etc. They often, even when they begin with an indirect quotation 
of others’ words, pass over very soon into the oratio directa, as in 
Luke v. 14; Actsi.4; xxiii. 22; see §63. The same takes place 
in particular after verbs of requesting; in which case instead of 
subjoining the request indirectly, by means of an Inf. or a clause 
with va (§ 44, 8), the precise words of the petitioner are stated, — 
as in Luke xiv. 18 épwr ce, éye pe rrapytnuévov, vs. 19; v. 12; 
Jno. iv. 81; ix. 2; Phil. iv. 3; Acts ii. 40; xvi. 15; xxi. 39; 
Matt. viii. 31; xviii. 29; 1 Cor. iv.16. However, what the style 
loses thus in compactness, it gains on the other hand in animation 
and vividness. Further, see Schleiermacher, Herm. 131. 


Note. It is interesting to notice, in parallel sections, especially in the 
69 


546 § 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 


first three gospels, the variety as respects the structure and connection of 


508 sentences. Luke will be found by such comparison invariably the most 


Tth ed. 


expert writer, and more careful than the others also in the selection of his 
words; (he prefers, for instance, idiomatic expressions, verba composita 
and decomposita). ‘This subject, however, belongs to N. T. Stylistics. 


568 §61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES, ESPECIALLY WHEN 


IRREGULAR (HYPERBATON). 


1. The arrangement of the individual words of a sentence is, 
in general, determined by the order in which the conceptions are 
formed, and by the specific relation which the different parts of 
the sentence (as groups of words) bear to each other. This rela- 
tion requires, for instance, that the adjective should regularly be 
placed in immediate contact with its substantive, the adverb with 
its verb or adjective, the Genitive with its governing noun, the 
preposition with its case, and one member of an antithesis with 
the other. In particulars, however, the connection of a clause 
with what precedes (cf. Heb. xi.1; 1 Tim. vi.65; Col. i. 9; 
Phil. iv. 10), the greater (rhetorical) emphasis to be given to a 
word, even to a greater or less degree the requirements of euphony, 
regulate the respective position of the words. Sometimes, how- 
ever, the arrangement depends on the nature or the conventional 
importance of the ideas (e.g. terra marique, etc.). It is not nec- 
essary that the word to be emphasized should be placed at the 
commencement of the clause ; it may even stand at the end (see 
e.g. Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 74), and in any case in that position 
which from the nature of the sentence gives it the most striking , 
prominence. For example, intentional connection with what pre- 
cedes causes a relative pronoun, even in an oblique case, usually 
to begin the clause etc. The position of words is determined 
therefore, by the laws of the succession of thought and by rhetorical 
aims (Hm. Soph. Trach. p. 131). And although these leave great 
latitude to the spontaneous mental movements of the writer, and 
are never felt by the practised author as trammels ; yet just because 
the arrangement of words decidedly serves logical and rhetorical 
purposes, only a small part of it usually becomes so habitual with 
an individual writer that it can be considered as a prominent 
characteristic of his style. 


1 No very thorough treatise is known to me on the arrangement of words in Greek. 
Kithner’s attempt, however, to vindicate for this subject (under the name of Topih) its 


§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 5AT 


2. The arrangement of words in the N. T. is in the main deter- 
mined by the same principles as in the Greek prose authors, for 
these principles are but to a very small extent confined to any 
particular nation. It must be remarked, however, that 

a. The arrangement of words is bolder and more diversified in 
the didactic writings, particularly those of Paul, than in the his- 
torical books; since in the former the rhetorical element is more 
influential, while in the (synoptical) gospels the Hebraistic type 
of arrangement predominates. 

b. Especially in the narrative style, a wide separation of the 
two principal parts of a sentence, the Subject and the verb (Pred- 
icate), is avoided; and, in accordance with the Hebrew mode of 
expression, sometimes the verb is advanced nearer to the Subject, 
sometimes, when the Subject is complex, only the principal Subject 
precedes the verb, and the others follow (see § 58, 6), lest the 
attention should be kept too long in suspense. Relative clauses, 
too, are if possible so placed as to be introduced only after the full 
enunciation of the principal clause. On the whole, the arrange- 
ment of words in the N. T. is simple and free from all affectation, 
as well as from stiffness or monotony. Gersdorf, in his well-known 
work, has professed to point out numerous peculiarities of indi- 
vidual N.'T. writers; but on strict examination it will be found 
‘that a) he has not duly investigated the several particulars on 
which the arrangement of words is in every case dependent ; and 
b) under the impression that it might become the invariable usage 
of a writer to place e.g. the adverb before or after the verb, he has 
propounded and partly executed a species of critical inquiry that 
merits the charge of prejudgment. A philosophical work on this 
subject would be a great acquisition to verbal criticism. 


It is not a matter of indifference whether a writer employs 70 rvetya 
tov Oeod or TO tvedpa TO TOU Geod (cf. § 20, 1), or, without the articles, 
mvevpa Oeov or Geot wv. Every individual passage of the N. T. must be 
elucidated according to its respective stylistic conformation. To lose sight 


due place in grammar deserves thanks (ii. 622 ff.) ; Mdv. also has collected some observa- 
tions on the subject (Syntax, S. 258 ff.).. In regard to Latin, special inquiries were 
previously instituted in connection with the doctrine of sound, and the subject is ably 
though briefly handled by Zumpt, Grammat. S. 626 ff.; cf. also Hand, Lehrb. des lat. 
Styls S. 307 ff. ; Gernhard, commentatt. gramm. P.8 (Jen. 1828. 4to.). On the ancient 
languages in general, see H. Weil, de l’ordre des mots dans les langues anciennes ete. 
Paris, 1844. 8vo. As respects the habitude of individual writers in the arrangement 
of words, Tzschirner, for instance, who strove after a prose rhythm, could not fail to 
be recognized in any one of his writings. 


509 
Tth ed, 
569 


484 
6th ed, 


548 §61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 


of this, neglecting the Codd. (as well as the ancient versions, and the 
more or less free quotations in the Fathers), and invariably to attribute 
to a writer one and the same arrangement of words, is empirical pedantry. 
If the adjective is usually placed thus: PdBos péyas, épyov ayabov, or the 
570 adverb in reference to its adjective thus: xaAerds Nav, peyddn obddpa 
510 (Strabo 17, 801), the arrangement is very natural. The opposite arrange- 
ith ed. ment either aims at giving prominence to the adjectival or adverbial notion, 
which with many writers may be caused by an antithesis habitual to them 
(kada épya is used for the most part by Paul); or the (antithetical) nature 
of a particular adjectival notion may require that it should precede, like 
adXos, «is, duos, etc. That 6 dv@pwzos otros should occur more frequently 
than otros 6 avOpwros is likewise not surprising. The latter arrangement 
implies an emphasis on the pronoun (this man, no other), which is in place 
only when one is speaking dex7iuxds or intensively. The predominance 
of the latter arrangement in John (Gersdorf 444 f.) is, in the first place, 
by no means decided, and secondly, the reason for such arrangement may 
be easily perceived in all the passages in which it occurs. Tatra zavra 
Luke xii. 80 and zévra tatra Matt. vi. 82 are not exactly of the same 
import (Gersd. 447 f.): the former means THESE THINGS all together ; 
the latter, ALL these. In the first expression, zavra is a closer specification 
of ratra; in the second, zavra is pointed out demonstratively by means 
of ratvra. Lavra tatra is undoubtedly the more rare, much like omnia 
haec in Latin, yet in Matt. xxiii. 86; xxiv. 83 f.; Luke vii. 18 it is the 
better established reading, cf. Bengel on Matt. xxiv. 33. That the 
narrators when they subjoin something chronologically say év éxetvois tats 
Hpépats and the like, will not be considered by any observant reader as an 
arbitrary deviation from the usual sequence: 7 wéAts éxelvyn. To what 
purpose are remarks such as: wdAw, éxeifev etc. are placed sometimes 
before and sometimes after?+ Finally, I cannot imagine how Gersdorf 
(S. 335) could so misjudge the place of the adjective in Matt. xiii. 27 ; 
xv. 20 as even to be inclined to correct the text. When we find in Matt. 
xv. 34 mécous dprovs exere; of b& eizov: Extra Kal dAcya ixOvdua but in 
Mark viii. 7 kat etyov ixOvdua dAcya, the antithesis with ér7ra required that 
éAtya should precede ; whilst in the latter passage bread and fish are con- 
trasted: they had also in fish a small provision. ‘That Paul writes in 
1 Tim. v. 23 otvw é6AdGjw and James iii. 5 6Atyov (var. 7Atkov) zdp, nobody 
probably will think strange who studies language with attention. In 
Jno. v. 22 tHv Kpiow Tacav dédwxe TO vid, Tacav is very appropriately 
485 placed immediately before dédwxe, as it belongs to it (he gave it to him not 
bth ed, in part, but wholly, 1 Cor. xii. 12), cf. also Matt. ix.35; Rom. iii. 9; xii. 4; 


1 Even the more precise remark of van Hengel, Philipp. p. 201, on wdAw as used in 
Paul’s epistles, I cannot admit as a canon according to which critical or exegetical 
inquiries could implicitly be conducted. As to Phil. ii. 28 Iadhere to the exposition 
propounded in § 45, 4 note 1 p. 346. 


§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 549 


Acts xvi.26; xvii. 21; 1 Cor. x. 1 (Xen. Hell. 2,3, 40; Thue. 7, 60 etc.). 
Along with the arrangement raca 7) roXts occurs also 6 was vomos Gal. v. 14, 

Tov mavra xpdvov Acts xx. 18; 1 Tim.i. 16 (Thuc. 4,61; Isocr. Dem. 571 
p- 1; Herod. 1, 14,10; Stallb. Phil. 48). On the simple precedence of 

an emphatic word (Jno. vi. 57; viii. 25; ix. 31; xiii. 6; Rom. vil. 23; 
ieee COor. Xil.. 22 ; xiv. 2; xy. 44; Luke ix. 20; xii. 30; xvi. 11; 
Heb. x. 30; Jas. iii. 3; 1 Pet. iii. 21; 2 Pet. i.21), no remark is neces- 
sary. Yet see under 3. The order in the apostolic benediction xapis 54] 
tuty «kat cipyvy, uniformly adhered to as it is (in Ist and 2d Pet. also), is ith a, 
certainly intended to point out xdpis as the principal and more comprehen- 
sive idea, to which eipyvy is added as a consequent. The Vocative, with 

or without @, either precedes the sentence, — that is, when it expresses a 

cry Mark xiy. 37, or as an address is intended to rouse the attention for 
what follows Matt. viii. 2; xv. 28; xviii.32; xxv.26; Mark ix.19; Luke 

vill. 48; xxiv. 25; Jno. vi. 68; xiii. 6; xxi. 15 sqq.; Acts i. 11; ii. 29; 

v. 39; vii. 59; ix. 13; xiii. 10; xxv. 24; Rom.ix. 20; Gal. iii.1; 1 Tim. 

vi. 20, — or is intercalated into the sentence, when, that is, the attention 

of the person addressed is assumed, and what follows is to be referred 
solely to him Matt. ix. 22; xvi.17; xx. 81; Jno. xii. 15; Acts i 1; 
xxvi. 19, 24,27; Gal.i.11; Phil.i.12; iii.17; Philem. 20; 2 Pet.i.10; 
Rey. xv. 4. The Vocative in this case stands after one word or several, 
according as they are or are not connected in sense Matt. xvi. 17; Jno. 

xii. 15; Rey. xy. 4, etc. ; sometimes, when supplementary, it stands at the 

end of the sentence Luke vy. 8; Jno. xiv. 9; Acts xxvi. 7. 


3. The grounds of every unusual arrangement (transposition) 
of words, when it originates in the writer’s free choice, may with 
greater or less distinctness be ascertained. The following cases 
are to be distinguished : 

a. When the unusual position of the words is occasioned by 
rhetorical causes, and is consequently intentional, as in 1 Pet. ii. 7 
the appositive (Weber, Demosth. p. 152) rots rucrevovow is reserved 
for the conclusion, because the condition as believers, if we believe, 
thus obtains greater prominence, particularly as it is brought so 
close to the antithetical deodcr.1 Cf. 1 Jno. v. 13,16; Jno. 
xiii. 14; Rom. xi. 13; Heb. vi. 18 (Stallb. Plat. Euthyd. p. 144), 
also Heb. vii. 4 6 Kai Sexdrny "ABpaap axev éx Td axpoOiviwr, o 
matptapyns unto whom Abr. gave even a tenth, the patriarch, 
xi. 17; 1 Pet. iv. 4. Other instances of the same sort are Heb. 
vi. 19 Hv ws ayKupav Eyowev T. wuyis aoparh te Kai BeBalav Kat 
Elsepyouevny etc. x. 84; 1 Pet. i. 23; 1 Cor. xiii. 1 éav tals yAwo- 


1 Cf. with this Demosth. fals. leg. 204 ¢. elu) rolvuv 6 katnyopav e& apxiis ey TodTwy, 
rovtwy 8 ovdels euod. 


550 § 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 


cas 7. GvOpmirwv AaB Kal TOV ayyédXov, Acts xxiv. 17; xxvi. 22. 
The Genitive in particular is put last, 1 Thess. i. 6; Jno. vii. 88; 
1 Tim. iii. 6, etc. In giving a word precedence (see above, no. 2), 
antithesis is coiditi fees in 1 Cor. x. 11 tadta tv701 cvvéBawov éxelvors, 
éypadn o€ mpos etc. Luke xvi. 12; xxiii. 31; Jno. ix. 17; xxi. 21, 
likewise in 2 Cor. il. 4 ody Wa AuTNOiTe, Gra THY ayaT HY iva 
yverte, xil.7; 1 Cor.ix.15; Acts xix.4; Rom. xi. 81; Col. iv. 16; 
Gal. ii. 10 (Cic. div. 1,40; Mil. 2 fin. ; Kri. 236), as well as in 
1 Cor. vi. 4 BiwrtiKa pev ody KpiTipta éay éynte (such postpone- 
ment of éav is frequent in Demosth., see Klotz, Devar. p. 484) ; 
Rom. xii. 3 éxdotw os padi Létpov wictews, 1 Cor. iii. 5; vill. 7; 


512 Jno. xiii. 34 (Cie. off. 2, 21, 72); 2 Thess. ii. 7 hove 1a 


Tth ed. 


572 


486 


6th ed, 


apTt Ews €k Lecou IPT at; finally in Rom. viii. 18 ov« a&ia ta 
ma0nwata T. viv Kalpov Tpos T. MENNOVG AD Sokay aTroKadvpOhval, 
Gal. 1112:23.5 -Hebix. ty; 1 Cor. xii. 22, 

b. At dither times we find a closer specification, which ante 
occurred to the writer after the sentence had been arranged, 
brought in afterwards; as, Acts xxii. 9 To wév hos EPeacavTo, THY 
5¢ hwviy ovx Kovcav TOD NaXodYTOS mot, iv. 83 peyadry Svvdpet 
amedioovvy TO papTUpLoy ol amocTOAOL THS AvadTdaEews TOV 
xcuplov Inaod, Heb. xii. 11; Jno. iv. 39; vi. 66; xii. 11; 1 Cor. 
x. 27; Luke xix. 47; 1 Pet. i.13; 2 Pet. iti. 2 (Acts) ae 
ef. Arrian. Al. 8, 23, 1 rods trrorerbOévtas ev TH diwEer THs oT pa- 
7Las. To this head should probably be referred also Rev. vil. 17. 
In 2 Pet. iii. 1 év als Sveyelpo twav ev bTomvynces THY eiALKpWH 
Sidvorav the words spaced out are thrust into the current of the 
sentence as a subjoined closer specification of dceyeipo. 

c. Words which are to be joined together in sense, are placed 
near each other; as, Rom. ix. 21 yes é£ovolay 0 Kepapers T. THLOD 
é€x Tod aitod dupdpatos rrovjoas etc., 1 Pet. ii. 16; 1 Cor. i. 11. 
In Eph. ii. 8 ddcee belongs to tékva, and accordingly has the most 
suitable place. 

d. Sometimes the transposition is unavoidable; as, Heb. xi. 82 
aqehanvres yap pe Sunyovpevor 6 xypovos wept Tedewv, Bapax te 
Kal Zaprpov etc. where, since a long series of names follows with 
which in vs. 83 a relative clause is to be connected, no other 
arrangement was possible, vi. 1, 2; 1 Cor. 1. 30. 

e. An effort to keep unimportant words in the background, is 
manifest in Heb. iv. 11 wa pw év Te avT@ TLs brrodetypate TECH 
etc. v.4; 1 Pet. ii,19; Acts xxvi. 24. So perhaps in 1 Cor. 
v. 1 ste yuvaixd Twa TOD TaTpos Exew (that the wife one has of his 


§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 551 


Sather), Luke xviii. 18. See Weber, Demosth. pp. 139, 251. Like- 
wise in Heb. ix. 16 dmrov dcabjxn, Oavatov avayxn dépecPar Tod 
Otabepévon, the main thought @avatov avayxn would have been 
weakened if the last word had been placed anywhere else. 
Occasionally in the more dexterous N. T. writers the auriwm 
judicium even, on which Cicero laid so much stress, may have 
exerted an influence, and produced a more flowing and rhythmical 
arrrangement. 


On the collocation of the same or similar words, as kaxovs Kak@s a7oAé- 
oet, see § 68, 1; cf. Kiihner II. 628. 

The antecedent position of the Predicate (e.g. in Jno. i. 1, 49 cf. vs. 
ary iv. 19, 24; vi. 60; Rom. xiii. 11; 2 Pet. i. 10,14, 19; Phil. ili. 20; 
ii. 11; 1 Jno. i. 10; Rev. ii. 9) is everywhere to be judged of according 
to the principles stated above. It is quite natural also, that, particularly 
in sentences having an exclamatory character, as well as in macarisms, the 
predicate should be placed at the beginning (the omission of the substan- 
tive verb being in such sentences the predominant usage), e.g. Matt. xxi. 9 
evAoynpevos 6 épxopevos ev ovoparte kupiov, xxiii. 839; Luke i. 42, 68; 2 Cor. 
i. 3; 1 Cor. ii. 11; 1 Pet. i. 3; Matt. v. 3 paxdpior of mrwxol TO Trevpart, 
4-11; xxiv. 46. So also regularly in forms of praise in the O. T. (47793, 518 
172") Gen. ix. 26; 1 Sam. xxvi. 25; 2 Sam. xviii. 28; Ps. evi. 48, ete. 7th ed. 
But only an empirical expositor could regard this position as an unalter- 573 
able rule; for, when the subject constitutes the principle notion, especially 
when it is antithetical to another subject, the predicate may and must be 
placed after it, cf. Ps. Ixvii. 20 Sept. And so in Rom. ix. 5, if the words 
0 dv éxt rdvtwv Geds ediAoyyros etc. are referred to God, the position of the 
words is quite appropriate, and even indispensable, — which, with many 
others, Harless on Eph. i. 3 has failed to see. 

As to placing in particular the Genitive before the governing noun, see 
§ 30, 3, note 4, p.192. Careful writers avoid such arrangement if misap- 
prehension could arise from it. Hence in Heb. vi. 2 Barricpév d8daxjs is 
not instead of didax. Barr., especially as in the other groups the position 
of the Genitive is in accordance with the rule. In the passages adduced 
by Tholuck from Thue. and Plut. ambiguity is impossible. 


4. Formerly, attention to the arrangement of words in the N. T. 487 
was restricted to those cases in which parts of sentences are found ‘Sth ed. 
separated from those words with which they belong logically 
C1 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Pet. ii. 7; Rom. xi. 18; Heb. ii. 9), which 
was denominated 7rajection.! Such restriction was not so much 


1 See on such trajections in Greek, Abresch, Aristaenet. p. 218; Wolf, Demosth. 
Lept. p. 300 ; Reitz, Lucian. VII. 448 Bip.; Kriiger, Dion. Hal. p. 139, 318; Engelhardt, 
Euthyphr. p. 123 sq. 


552 § 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 


to be censured, as the almost entire neglect to inquire into the 
reasons which, in each particular case, gave occasion to the so- 
called trajection. By such (rather instinctive) reasons the N. T. 
writers were invariably guided. Very seldom indeed have they 
transposed words, either when the nature of the ideas (Quintil. 
instit. 9, 4, 24) suggested the arrangement of the words (Matt. 
vil. 7; Jno. vii. 84; Rev. xxi. 6; xxii. 13; Matt. viii. 11; Heb 
xill. 8), or in phrases where according to the nature or importance 
of the ideas (sometimes not without regard to ease of utterance) 
the order of words had been fixed conventionally. Thus: dvdpes 
Kat yuvaixes Acts Vill. 33 ix. 2, yuvatxes Kal traidia or téxva Matt. 
xiv. 21; xv. 38; Acts xxi. 5, Gavres x. vexpot Acts x. 42; 2 Tim. 
iv. 1; 1 Pet. iv. 5, vita x. nuépav Acts xx. 313; xxvi. T, vuetos x. 
nuépas 1 Thess. ii. 9; iii. 10, cdpé x. aiua Matt. xvi.17; Gal.i.16; 
Jno. vi. 54, 56, écOieav (tp@yev) x. tivew Matt. xi. 18; Luke 
vil. 84; xii. 45; 1 Cor. xi. 22, 29, Bpdots x. woos Rom. xiv. 17; 

D714 Col. ii. 16, épyw x. Acyo Luke xxiv. 19 (Fr. Rom. IIT. 268), 6 
oupavos kal n yn Matt. v.18; xi. 25; xxiv. 85; Acts iv. 24, ete. 
6 HALOS K. 7 céAHVN Luke xxi. 25; Rev. xxi. 23, 7 v7 Kx. 7 Oaracca 
Acts iv. 24; xiv.15; Rev. vii. 1,3; xiv. 7, etc., right ... left Matt. 

514 xx. 21; xxv. 83; Mark x. 40; Luke xxiii. 33; 2 Cor. vi. 7; Rev. 

tthed. x, 2, Soddor ... EdeUOepor 1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. iii. 28; Eph. vi. 8, 
"Tovdaios x. “EdAnves Acts xviii. 4; xix. 10; Rom. i. 9; 1 Cor. 
i. 24 (cf. Rom. ii. 9f.) and the like. Deviations from this order 
occur but sparingly (cases, indeed, may be conceived in which the 
reverse order corresponds better with the truth, cf. Rom. xiv. 9; 
Heusinger, Plut. educ. 2,5); and if there is exclusive or predom- 
inant MS. authority for the opposite, it must be unhesitatingly 
adhered to, e.g. Eph. vi. 12 aiva «. cap&, Heb. ii. 14; Matt. xxiii. 
15 4 Oddacca x. ) Enpd, Acts ix. 24 ypyépas x. vuetos Luke xviii. 7 ; 
Rom. xv. 18 Ayo x. éoym (Diod. 8. exc. Vat. p. 23), Col. in. 11 
“EdAnv «x. Iovéaios. (Cod. D has in Matt. xiv. 21; xv. 88 [and in 
the latter passage Cod. Sin. also] qasdda Kai yuvatkes, cf. Caes. b. 
gall. 2,28; 4,14.) In the N.T. the order oi arodes Kai ai yeipes 
seems to predominate, as in Matt. xxii. 18; Jno. xi. 44; xiii. 9; 
Acts xxi. 11. Only in Luke xxiv. 39 f. we find the opposite tas 
xeipds plov Kal Tovs modas (perhaps with reference to the fact that 
only the hands of persons crucified were pierced, and were there- 
fore considered principal parts, just as Jno. mentions only the 
hands). In Rom. xiv. 9 the order vexpot Kat se is determined 
by the preceding azé0avev Kai éfnoev. 


§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 553 


The arrangement of words in the N.T. is more unrestrained, 
when a series of ideas is framed. For then general and special 
conceptions etc. are not grouped together, but the words follow 
one another according to some loose association of ideas, or even 488 
a resemblance in sound, Rom. i. 29, 31; Col. iii. 5. See, in gen- Sth ed 
eral, Lob. paralip. p. 62 sqq. 

It is necessary to be cautious in applying to such abnormal arrangements 
the name of hysteron proteron (cf. Odyss. 12,154 ras pev apa Opefaca 
texovoa te, Thuc. 8, 66; Nitzsch on the Odyss. I. 251 f.). We remark in 
passing, that on Jno. i. 52 dyyéAouvs Geod dvaBaivovras kai kataPai- 
vovtas Liicke has stated the right view of the matter; and that vi. 69 
memioTevKapey Kai eyvdxapev (cf. x. 38) must not on account of 1 Jno. iv. 16 
eyvoxapev Kal reriotevKapev (Jno. Xvii. 8) be considered as an inversion of 
thought, see BCrus. in loc. Likewise, in other passages of the N. T. it 
would be a mistake to suppose there is a hysteron proteron: In 1 Tim. 

ii. 4 ravtas avOpuirous OéAec cwOjvar Kat cis eriyvwow ddAnfetas eAOety the 
comprehensive ultimate end is first mentioned, and then the immediate (as 

the means of attaining the former), — (kat and therefore). In Acts xiv. 10, 
however, 7\aro Kal repteraret is quite as possible as a matter of fact, as in 575 
iii. 8 mepuratav Kal dAdopevos. In 2 Pet. i. 9 puwralwv is subjoined as a 
more exact definition. The hysteron proteron which Bornem. Acts xvi. 18 

has adopted from Cod. D, rests on too little authority. Further, see 
Wilke, Rhetor. 226. 

5. f. Sometimes, however, single words were misplaced through 
inadvertency, or still more, because the ancients, expecting none 
but intelligent readers, were released from the necessity of minute 
accuracy. Such irregularity occurred not unfrequently in prose 
writers in the use of certain adverbs (Stallb. Plat. Phaed. p. 123), 
to which, from the sense, every reader could at once assign the 545 
proper position, even though the author’s arrangement might not be tthed 
the most logical. This applies to ded in Isocr. Paneg. 14 dveTéXeoav 
KOWNV THY TOY TApEeXOVTES Kal TOs adLKoUpEeVOLS det TOV EXAHVOV 
évauvvovaayv, Xen. Oec. 19,19; Thue. 2, 43, etc. (see Kriiger, Dion. 

p. 252; Schaef. Demosth. IL. 254) ; also to vroAXaxis Stallb. Plat. 
rep. I. 93; to érs Rom. v.6 €te Xpiotos dvtwn nuav acbevav 
Ginstead of érv dvr. jy. acO.) cf. vs. 8; Plato, rep. 2,363 d.; Achill. 
Tat. 5, 18 and Poppo, Thue. I. I. 300 sqq. ; lastly, to éuas 1 Cor. 
Xiv. T Ouws Ta apuya dhovipy biddovta... av Siactodiy ois 
POoyyous uy 86, THs yvwcOnceTat TO av’rovpevoy etc. instead of ra 
apuya, (kaitrep) dov. &:8., Guws, éav py etc., and Gal. ili. 15 ones 
avOp@tou Kexupwpéevny SiaOjnenv ovdels aOeret instead of OM. ovoels 
aberet (see Bengel, and my Comment. in loc.), cf. Plato, Phaed. 
70 


554 § 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 


91 c. doBetrar pi) Wey? Euws Kal Oewtepov Kat Kaddov ov TOD 
THMaATOS TpoaTroAdUyTat, see Hm. and Lob. Soph. Aj. 15; Doederlein, 
Soph. Oed. C. p. 396; Pflugk, Eurip. Androm. p. 10 and Hel. p. 76.1 
489 Likewise the transposition of a negative is not altogether rare 
6th ed i) Greek authors (especially the poets, see Hm. Hurip. Hee. vs. 12). 
Then, however, there is either a suppressed antithesis, e.g. Plat. 
Crit. 47 d. wevQouevos py TH Tov érraiovtay don, lege. 12, 948 a. ; 
Xen. M. 3,9, 6; ef. Kiihner II. 628 ;2 or the negative, instead of 
576 being joined to the word denied, is prefixed to the whole sentence, 
as in Plato, Apol. 85d. a& ware ayotwas Kara civar pnte Sixaa, 
Xen. Eph. 3, 8 6te wn to dappaxov Oavacipov jv ; so also in Acts 
vii. 48 adrX odx 0 tioTos ev YeLpoTroTols KaTouxe?. Further, 
many expositors® think they find a misplaced negative also in 
Rom. ili. 9 ti obv ; wpoeyouela ; ov TavtTa@s, i.e. by no means 
516 (mavtws ov 1 Cor. xvi. 12). This interpretation is unavoidable, 
ithel. whether we translate mpocexowela have we an advantage? or have 
we a pretext ? The linguistic admissibility of this signification is 
proved from Theogn. 305 (250 f.)* and Epiphan. haer. 88, 6, as 
well as by analogies such as ovéev wavtws Herod. 5, 34, 65 ;° only 
a transposition, strictly speaking, is not to be thought of. The 
phrase is rather to be understood thus: no, assuredly ; no, by no 
means ; and the difference between ov wavtws when it meant not 


1 We must not, however, with /’r. Mr. p. 19, refer to this head ev@éws (eb@vs). In 
Mark ii. 8; v. 30 it belongs to the participle beside which it stands. Elsewhere, Mark 
i. 10; ix. 15, it is put at the beginning of the sentence (see above in the text), and is 
easily to be construed with the principal verb. Also mdAw in 2 Cor. xii. 21 is not 
transposed, but made to precede the whole sentence: lest again, when I come, God 
humble me. So, probably, also cxe5év in Heb. ix. 22 (as if, and almost) applies to the 
sentence: all things are purged with blood. Cf. Galen. protrept. c. 1 7a wey &AAa (aa 
oxeddy &texva mdvT eorl. Aristot. polit. 2,8; Lys. ed. Auger [. p. 204. 

2 What Valckenaer, schol. N. T. II. 574, has adduced, is not all well selected. As to 
other passages, in which even recent scholars assert erroneously the existence of a 
trajection of the negation (e.g. Thuc.1, 5; 38, 57), see Sintenis, Plut. Themist. p. 2. 

3 I do not understand on what grounds some of these expositors assert that G'rotius’s 
rendering: not in all points, is unwarranted. As little do I understand how ov mavrws 
omnino non is called a Hebraism. >> X> too in immediate connection means non omnis ; 
ov mas for ovdeis is always so,separated that the verb is negatived by the od, see § 26, 1. 
233 N>, however, with the dmission of the verb, which AKoppe quotes in loc., I do not 
remember to have found in the O. T. 

4 Of kako o¥ mdyTws Kakol ex yaoTpds yeydvacw, 

GAN &vSpecot kakots cvvO€uevor pidlny. 

5 But ov mavu (uh mavv) means everywhere, not particularly. It is sometimes mild as 
to the expression, but strong as to the sense, a sort of litotes, see Weber, Demosth. 
p- 340; Franke, Demosth. p. 62. In Rom., as above, the context and tone of the pas- 
sage prevent us from rendering ob mdyrws in the same way, by a species of litotes 
(earnest or ironical), not entirely. 


§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 555 


entirely aud when it denoted entirely not, was probably indicated 

by the mode of utterance. Hence it was without reason that 
van Hengel despaired of giving a satisfactory exposition of the 
passage, and concluded that there must be an unnoted corruption 

of the text. On the other hand, in 1 Cor. v. 9 f. éypawa tyiv... 

fn ovvavapiyvucbar Tropvols, ov TavTwSs Tois TOpVvoLs TOD KdTpoU 
Tovtou, the expression ov wavTws signifies non omnino (Sext. Emp. 
Mathem. 11, 18), and the last words are a corrective explanation 

of un.cvvavapy. topvots: to have no intercourse with fornicators, 
not absolutely with the fornicators of this world, for then must ye 
needs go out of the world (but, strictly, with impure members of 

the church). So Luther. Likewise Heb. xi. 3 els to pur) €x haivo- 
pévov Ta BreTTOMEva yeyovévat is erroneously supposed to contain 

a transposed negation. It is, however, correctly rendered by 
Schulz: so that things which may be seen have not come of 490 
things visible ; cf. also Bengel in loc. That which is denied is, th ed. 
éx haivopévav Ta BreTOpeva yeyovévat, and to this sentence the 577 
negative is prefixed quite according to rule. The instance to 
which appeal is made of a transposition of a negation in 2 Macc. 

Vil. 28 6te ovK €& dvTwY Eetroincev avTa 6 Meds is uncertain, as only 
Cod. Alex. has that reading. Tdf. has printed ¢& ov« évtwv. Lastly, 

2 Cor. ili. 4 f. aremrol@now ... eyomev, ovy OTL ixavol oper etc. must 

not be explained thus: 67v ovy (7) etc. Rather is it to be ren- 
dered: this confidence have we ...; not (referring to 2 Cor. i. 24) 
that we are sufficient through ourselves, but owr sufficiency is from 

_ God. In 2 Cor. xiii. 7 Paul states the aim of edyoweba .. . wndév 

in the words ovy ta mpeis Soxior havaper, first negatively: not 
that I (if ye abstain from evil) may appear approved (as your 
teacher). In 1 Jno. iv. 10 the propriety of the arrangement ody 

67e is obvious. In Rom. iv. 12 the negation is not misplaced, but 

the singularity consists in the repetition of the article before oro 
xovow ;—a negligence of style which Fr. has tried to conceal by. 
an artificial exposition, but which Philippi freely admits. In 517 
regard to 1 Cor. xv. 51 wavtes (peév) ob KoyunPnoducba, mdvres dé Theol 
adraynoopeba, even after the remarks of Fr. de conformatione text. 
Lachm. p. 88 sq. and of van Hengel Cor. p. 216 sqq., I can only 
agree with Mey. That is to say, vs. 52 shows that a\datrecOat 

is not applied in the wider sense (to the risen also), but in the 
narrower, as opposed to éyelpecOar. The passage can only be 
rendered : we shall all (the generation whom Paul addressed) — 
not fall asleep,—but all be changed. Paul had the idea that 





556 § 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 


some of the wdavres might die, and would then belong to the vexpots | 
vs. 52, and %uwets would stand loosely in opposition. Any doubt 
respecting Paul’s having been able to foretell a thing of this sort 

cannot induce me to assign to aAAarT. in vs. OL a signification 

different from what it has in vs. 52. Mey. has answered all other 
objections. That in Rom. xiii. 14 14s capKods mpévoav pur) Troveia Be 

eis emvOuuias is not put for ua eis émv@. is doubtless on any sup- 

position clear, see Fr. in loc. ‘Translators, including Luther, have 

taken the liberty to make a transposition in 2 Cor. xii. 20; but 

the arrangement in Greek is perfectly regular. ; 


In Rom. xv. 20 ody drov according to Bengel is used instead of dzov ovk 
for greater force, and according to BCrus. it is a milder, more modest, 
form of expression ; whereas it is simply the only correct expression : ovras, 

578 ovx dzov... dAAd etc. In Rom. viii. 12 0d 7) capxi suggests without help 
the antithesis dAAa 7d mvetpart. To the (appropriate) variation in the 
position of the negative in Rom. ii. 14 €vn 7a pu vomov exovra and vopov 
pn €xovres Bengel had already directed attention, see also Mey. in loc. 

Some critics have thought that there is a hyperbaton in 2 Tim. ii. 6 
TOV KoTLOVTA yewpyov Set mpOTov Tav KapTav peradapBavew. ‘The Apostle 

491 according to vs. 5 appears to mean to say: the husbandman that first 

6th el laboreth, must be partaker of the fruits, i.e. the husbandman must first 
labor, before he be partaker of the fruits; so that mpdrov belongs to komay, 
and the sentence should run accordingly, cf. Xen. C. 1, 3, 18 6 cds zparos 
TaTHp TETAypEVva TroLEl, 1.e. 6 ods TaTHp TpaTos Tet. 7. ‘To get rid of the 
hyperbaton, Grotius makes zpérov signify demum, which is inadmissible. 
Later expositors, laying the emphasis on xoz. as purposely placed first, 
explain the passage thus: the laboring (not the idle) husbandman has the * 
first right to partake of the fruits, see, especially, Wiesinger in loc. Similar 
and even more remarkable hyperbata are not unfrequent in Greek prose ; 
see Plat. rep. 7, 524a.; Xen. Cyr.2,1,5; cf. Bornem. Xen. Anab. p. 21; 
Franke, Demosth. p. 33. 

In Greek authors one or more words of a relative sentence are some- 
times put before the relative (Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 109), for the sake of 
emphasis, see above, no. 3. Several expositors have attributed this idiom 
to Acts i. 2, and punctuated the passage thus: tots droordAats, dua. rvevpaTtos 
dylov ods é€eAeEato ; but with little probability, as évreAA. dua rvevp. ay. was 
here (in reference to the sequel of the Acts) the only point of importance 
in Luke’s mind; while éxAéy. dua rod wv. fell within the range of the pre- 

518 vious history of the Gospel, and did not need to be stated here for the 
Ithed. first. time. The general reference contained in ods é&eAeé., by which 
primarily the apostles are indicated, is not superfluous, as it was by that 
previous election that they had been prepared to receiye the directions 
dui Tod zv., see Valcken. in loc. There would be more ground for such 


§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 557 


punctuation in Acts v. 35 mposéxere Eavrois, ext tots avOpwHrows Tovrots Té 
pedrere mpdcoew (see Bornem. in loc.), although the usual mode of con- 
necting the words gives a suitable meaning: take heed to yourselves in 
regard to these men, what ye intend to do. 

On the other hand, it is inconceivable that Luke could have written in 
Acts xxvii. 39 KéArov twa Katevoovy exovra aiyiaddv for aiy. exovra KdATOV 
twa. Grotius long ago remarked: non frustra hoc additur, sunt enim 
sinus quidam maris, qui litus non habent, sed praeruptis rupibus cinguntur ; 
see also Bengel. Moreover, aiy. €xovra must be regarded as directly 
joined to the relative clause «is 6v etc.: which had a beach, on which they 
determine@to land, i.e. a beach of such a description as may have induced 
them to attempt a landing. It would be equally harsh to construe, as 
some do, Rom. vii. 21 etpicxw apa tov vouov To GéXovTe epol Tocely TO KAaAOV 
Ort enol TO Kakov Tapdkerar thus: T@ GéAovre enol Tov vdpov Toreiv, TO Kaddv. OTY 
It has always appeared to me most natural to take the words thus: eép. 
dpa Tov vopov, TO ed. ... OTe wot 7d KaKov wapdkeira invenio hanc legem 
(normam) volenti mihi honestum facere, ut mihi etc. See also Philippi 
in loc. 

Many also find a trajection, sanctioned by long usage and even affecting 
the case (Mtth. 867), in Jno. xii. 1 rpo &€€ qepdv trod racya six days before 
the Passover, and xi. 18 jv 7) Bybavia éyyis trav ‘IepocoAvpwv ws ard cradiov 
Sexarevte about fifteen furlongs off, cf. xxi. 8; Rey. xiv. 20. That is, it is 
thought that if the prepositions stood in the right place the language 
would run e& 7€pais mpd Tod 7., and ws aradiovs Sex. ad ‘Tepoo. (Luke 492 
xxiy. 13). But probably in local specifications Greek phraseology pro- Mth ed 
ceded from a different view of the matter, azo oradiwy dex. (properly : 
situated at a distance of fifteen furlongs i.e. where the fifteen furlongs 
terminated, at the end of fifteen furlongs), as in Latin e.g. Livy. 24, 46 
Fabius cum a quingentis fere passibus castra posuisset ; Ramshorn S. 273.1 
If now it were necessary to specify besides the speaker’s position, it was 
added to the phrase in the Genitive. The same applies to specifications 
of time. As it was usual to say mpo e€ ypepdv vor sechs Tagen, before 
(the last past) sex days, the form of expression was retained when it was 
necessary to indicate the point of time from which the period in question 
was counted, as wpo && yepdv tod macyxa (cf. Evang. apocr. p. 436 f.). 
But whatever explanation we may give of the construction, both these 
forms of expression (the temporal and the local) were of frequent occur- 
rence in later Greek, cf. Ael. anim. 11,19 mpd wévre jepdv 16d adarioOjvar 
tiv EXixnv, Xen. Eph. 3, 3; Lucian. Cronos 14; Geopon. 12, 31, 2; Achill. 
Tat. 7, 14 (and Jacobs in loc.) ; Epiphan. Opp. II. 248 a. ; Strabo 10, 483 ; 

15, 715 xaradaBety dvdpas wevrexaidexa dxd oradiwy «ikoot THs TOAEws, 519 
Plutarch. Philop. 4 jv dypos atr@ Kadds ad oradiwy eikoot THs TOAEws, Diod. ith ed. 


1 Polyaen. 2, 35 tobs moAAobs exéAevcey Grd Bpaxéos StacrThuatos enecba is 
also illustrative. 


558 § 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 





S. 2,7; Acta apocr. p. 39, 61; see Reiske, Const. Porphyrog. IT. 20 ed. 
Bonn; Schaef. Long. p. 129. Kiihnél directs attention to the following 
passages of the Sept.: Amos i. 1 zpo dvo érav Tod cercpod, iv. 7 mpd TpLdv 
Envav tod tpvyytod, with Sing. wpd puas tuéepas THs Mapdoxaixyns yuépas, 
2 Mace. xv. 36 (Joseph. antt. 15, 11,4; Plut. symp. 8,1,1). Such phrases 
(in a temporal sense) are also composed with pera, as in Plut. Coriol. 11 
pel” ipépas ddlyas tis TOD watpds reAevrHs, Malal. 4, p. 88 pera. vB’ ery rod 
teXeuTH oat THV Llacipayny, Anon. chron. (before Malal. ed. Bonn.) p. 10 
pera. Ovo €T7n TOD KaTaKAvopodv, see Schaef. ad Bos, ellips. p. 553 sq. 


6. The position of certain particles and enclitic pronouns is 
080 fixed with greater or less precision in Greek, according to their - 
importance in the sentence. For instance, pév (pevodvye, évTos), 
ovv, €, yap, ye, Tolvuy, dpa, ought not to begin a sentence (apa 
also ought not to begin an apodosis, Xen. C. 1, 3,2; 8, 4, 7). 
With regard to most of these this rule is observed’ likewise in the 
N.T.;1 and 6¢, yap, odv, have sometimes the 2d, sometimes the 
8d, sometimes even the 4th place (though the Codd. do not every- 
where agree). They occupy the 3d or 4th place, particularly, 
when it is necessary to avoid separating words that are intimately 
connected [especially prepositional phrases], as in Gal. iii. 23 apo 
tov oé édOetv, [Heb. i. 13 mpos tiva 6€ Tov ayyédov], Mark i. 38 
els ToUTO yap e€ednAvOa, Luke vi. 23; xv. 17; 2 Cor. 1.190 rod 
493 Oeod yap vids, Acts xxvil. 14 wer’ od word dé EBare etc., Jno. vill. 16 
bthel at édv xplvw S& éyo, 1 Ino. ii. 2 od rept THY Hpetépwy 8é povor, 
1 Cor. viii. 4 wept tis Bpwocews odv Tav eidwdoOUTwr, 2 Cor. x. 1 
Os KaTa TpdswTroy wéev TaTrewos, JnO. xvi. 22; Acts ii. 21. Cf. on 
dé (Her. 8, 68; Aelian. anim. 7, 27; Xen. M. 2,1,16; 5, 4,13; 
Diod. 8.11, 11; Thuc. 1,6, 70; Arrian.'Al. 2, 2,2; Xen. eq. 11585 
Lucian. eunuch. 4; dial. mort. 5,1; Sext. Emp. math. 7, 65; 
Strabo 17, 808) Hm. Orph. p. 820; Boisson. Aristaenet. p. 687 ; 
Poppo, Thue. I. I. 802; III. I. 71; Stallb. Phileb. p. 90; Franke, 
Demosth. p. 208; on yap Schaef. melet. crit. p. 76; V. Fritzsche, 
quaest. Lucian. p. 100; on pév Hm. Orph. as above, Bornem. 
Xenoph. cony. p. 61; Weber, Demosth. 402. On the other hand, 
apa (see Hm. Soph. Antig. 628) is frequently, contrary to Greek | 
usage, placed first, as in Luke xi. 48; Rom. x. 17; 2 Cor. v. 15; : 
Gal. ii. 21; v.11 etc.; so also dpa oty in Rom. v. 18; vii. 3; 
2 Thess. 11.15; Eph.ii.19,etc. Likewise pevodvye begins a period 


1”E¢n, inserted in the direct discourse of a third party, occurs only in Acts xxiii. 35 ; 
but ¢not in Matt. xiv. 8; Acts xxv. 5, 22; xxvi. 25, etc. Usually we find in the N. T. 
6 TladAos &pn, 6 5& &py, before the oratio recta, which in Greek authors is the more rare 
usage, Mdv. S. 260. 


§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 559 


in Luke xi. 28; Rom. ix. 20; x. 18; see Lob. Phryn. p. 342; so 


also roivuy in Heb. xiii. 13. The latter very seldom begins a 520 
sentence in the better authors ; for instances in later writers, see 


Lob. Phryn. l.c. They are especially frequent in Sext. Emp., as 
in Math. 1, 11, 14, 25, 140, 152, 155, 217, ete. Among the By- 
zantines, cf. Cinnam. p. 125, 186, ed. Bonn. 


Whether the indefinite ris can stand as the first word of a clause has 
been doubted, Mtth. Eurip. suppl. 1187 and Sprachl. 1081. ‘Though from 
the nature of the case it may rarely begin a sentence, yet approved critics 
have with high probability established its claim to the first place in Soph. 
‘Trach. 865, and Oed. R. 1471 (cf. vs. 1475), Aeschyl. Choeph. 640 (Hm.). 
In prose cf. Plat. Theaet. 147 ¢.; Plut. trang. c. 13. In the N.T. tis 
beginning a sentence is established in Matt. xxvii. 47; Luke vi. 2; Jno. 
mais 2931 Tim. vy. 24; Phil. i. 15. 

"AAAa ye yet at least are, in the more ancient authors, always separated 
-by a word (though it be but a particle), Klotz, Devar. p.15sq. This rule 
is not observed in Luke xxiv. 21 dAAd ye oly rao. TovToLs Tpitny TavTHV 
nuepay aye, see Bornem. in loc. 

Moreover, pv is regularly placed after the word to which according to 
the sense it belongs.” There are, however, some exceptions to this rule: 
Acts xxii. 3 éyo pév ciue dvnp “lovdatos, yeyevvnpevos ev Tapow ths Kiduxias, 
dvareOpappévos d& ev TH ToAc tavry (for éyd «. a. I. yeyevy. pev etc.), Tit. 


J sa / = \ “ “ “ XN , ae / SQN 
1. 15 TAVTQA [LEV Kabapa TOLS kadapots, TOL de PEPLATLEVOLS KAL ATLOTOLS ovoev 


581 


xaQapdv for rots pey xabap. tava Ka. etc. or mdvra piv Kab.... ovdi 8: 494 


ad. 7. pu, 1 Cor. ii. 15.- Cf. Xen. M. 2,1, 6; 3,9, 8; Ael. anim. 2, 31; 0 


Diog. L. 6, 60, see Hm. Soph. Oed. R. 486; Hartung, Partik. IT. 416 f. 
Yet good Codd. have omitted péy in the above three passages of the N. T. 
[ Cod. Sin. also in the first two; yet in the second, corrector C has added 
pev |, and recent editors have accepted their authority. Might it not have 
been expunged because it was displeasing ? 

The proper position of re is after the word which stands parallel to 
another, as in Acts xiv. 1 ‘Iovdatwy re cat ‘EAAjvwv Todd TATOos, ix. 2 ; 
xx. 21; xxvi. 3. It is, however, not unfrequently inserted with more 
license, as in Acts xxvi. 22 (Elmsley, Eurip. Heracl. 622, yet cf. Schoem. 
Isae. p. 825) ; and, in particular, it stands immediately after a preposition 
or article, as in Acts x. 39; ii. 838; xxviii. 23; Jno. ii. 15, etc., in which 


1 But wévro: always stands after some other word that commences the sentence. It 
is otherwise in later writers, see PBoissonade, Anecd. II. 27.° 

2 When several words have a grammatical connection, as article and noun, preposi- 
tion and noun, pévy may be placed immediately after the first, eg. Luke x. 2 6 pev 
Gepiouds, Heb. xii. 11 mpds wey 7d mapov, Acts i. 1 ; viii. 4 ete. (Demosth. Lacrit. 595 a.). 
So also wév ody in Lysias pecun. publ. 3 év wey ody TE ToAEUy- Cf. Bornem. Xen. cony. 
p- 61. This holds also of other conjunctions, see above, p. 363. Also the names of 
a single person are separated by such conjunctions, Jno. XViii. 10 Siuwy ov Meérpos. 





560 § 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 


case 1t sometimes emphasizes them as belonging to the two parallel mem- 
bers alike, as in Acts xxv. 23 ovyv Te xtAtdpyots kal dvdpacw, xiv.5; x. 39; 
cf. Plat. legg. 7, 796d. ets te wodiretav kai idiovs oixovs, Thuc, 4, 138 and 
the examples collected by Elmsley as above (also Joseph. antt. 17, 6, 2) 

521 and Ellendt, lexic. Soph. Il. 796. See, in general, Sommer in Jahn’s 

7th ed. Archiv I. 401 ff. In the same way ye is placed after an article or mono- 
syllabic particle in Rom. viii. 832; 2 Cor. v. 8; Eph. iii. 2, cf. Xen. M. 1, 
2,27; 3,12,7; 4,2,22; Diod. 8.5, 40; see Matthiae, Eurip. Iphig. Aul. 
498 ; Ellendt, as above, I. 344. 

582 Many expositors, e.g. Schott, find a trajection of the xai (even) in Heb. 
vii. 4 ® kal dexatyny “ABpadp uxev, for o dexaryy kal “ABp. &. But the 
emphasis in this passage lies in the giving of a tenth, and Schulz has 
correctly translated it. 


7. Violent transpositions of clauses! have been thought to occur 

a. Acts xxiv. 22, where Beza, Grotius, and others, in explaining 
the words 6 ®7\E, axpiBéotepov Eidws Ta Tepl THs O60d, El7ras, OTaV. 
Avolas kataBn, Svayvecopuat etc., include ecdws in the clause elzras 
etc. and render thus: Felix, quando accuratius ... cognovero, 
inquit, et Lysias huc venerit etc. But the arrangement here is 
quite regular, as later expositors have perceived. Cf. Bornem. in 
Rosenm. Repert. IL. 281 f. 

b. 2 Cor. viii. 10 oftives od provoy TO TrotHoat AXXd Kal TO Oédew 
mpoevnpEacOe amo mépuot, Where an inyersion has been assumed : 
non velle solum sed facere wmcepistis (Grotius, Schott, Stolz, and 
others),? on account of vs. 11 7) mpo@upia rod OérXewv. This is 
wrong. The willing strictly indicates merely the decision (to col- 
lect), and if wpoevnpEacbe is spoken comparatively, that is with a 
reference to the Macedonian Christians, may be put before woiuoat, 
as expressing a point of more importance: Not only in execution, 
but even in intention, ye were before the Macedonians. So much 

495 the more fitting is it now, that the collection be quite completed.® 
bthel Tt might have been quite possible for the Corinthians to have been 
first prompted by the decision of the Macedonians to a similar 
decision. Mey. in loc. (1st ed.) subtilizes and finally arrives at the 


1 On this subject see W. Kahler, satura duplex de veris et fictis textus sacri trajec- 
tionib. ex Evangg. et Actis Apost. collect. Lemgov. 1728. 4to., and #. Wassenbergh, de 
transposit. salub. in sanandis vett. scriptor. remedio. Franecq. 1786. 4to. (also reprinted , 
in Seebode’s Miscell. Crit. I. 141 sqq.). : . 


2 Syriac pokes wo} i} LeAes jo sas oS olan 


8 T cannot admit that in this sense vs. 11 must have run, an émtedgoare Td Tothoat : 
the 0éAew, was, of course, completed long ago, but it is necessary to complete the 
mojo also. 


§ 62. INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE; PARENTHESES. 561 


exposition propounded by Fritzsche (diss. in Cor. II. 9), which de 
Wette ably combats. This last critic has recently reproduced the 
above explanation [which Mey. also has adopted in his 2d, 3d, and 

4th eds.], and I recall the view that I formerly upheld. As to Jno. 

xi. 15, see above, § 53, 10, 6, p. 459. (In Mark xii. 12 there is 
nothing whatever of the nature of a trajection. To the double 
clause is annexed, after its conclusion, the ground of the first 
member, and then in xai adévtes etc. the result is expressed. 522 
Similar is Mark xvi. 3. In Phil. i. 16 f. the two clauses should, ‘th ed. 
on the best testimony [Sin. also], be thus arranged: ot pev && 
ayarns ... ot 5é €& épiOeias, thus in converse relation to vs. 15 ; 583 
this can perplex no reader. ) 


Wher, in the arrangement of individual clauses, the dependent are placed 
before the principal, e.g. telic clauses, as in Matt. xvii. 27; Acts xxiv. 4; 
Jno. i. 31; xix. 28,31; 2 Cor. xii. 7; Rom. ix. 11 (see Fr. Rom. II. 297), 
relative clauses, as in Mark xi. 23; Jno. iii. 11; Rom. viii. 29 etc., con- 
ditional clauses, as in 1 Cor. vi. 4; xiv. 9, the grounds of such arrangement 
are obvious to every attentive reader, cf. Kiihner II. 626. Here belongs, 
probably, also 1 Cor. xv. 2 rive Adyw edyyyeAicdpnv ipiv «i Karéyere 3 see 
Mey. in loc. 


§62. INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES; PARENTHESES. 


1. Interrupted sentences are those whose grammatical flow is 
obstructed by the insertion of a clause complete in itself;! as, 
Acts xiii. 8 av@ictato avtois ’EXvpas 0 pdyos — otTws yap pebep- 
pnveveTat TO Ovowa avTovV — CnTav diactpéwar etc., Rom. i. 13 od 
Ow twas ayvoety OTL TOAAaKIS TpoEMEuny édOeiv Tpds twas — Kal 
ExwdvOnv aypt Tov Sedpo — iva Tia KapTroV ox®@ Kal év tuiv. The 
clause thus inserted is denominated a parenthesis,? and is usually 
separated visibly from the rest of the period by the well-known 


parenthetical marks.’ According to the preceding definition the 496 
bth ed. 

1 The definition given in Ruddimann’s Instit. II. 396, ed. Stallb. is not amiss: paren- 
thesis est sententia sermoni, antequam absolvatur, interjecta. Witlke’s definition 
(Rhetor. S. 226) is too comprehensive. 

2 Ch. Wolle, comment. de parenthesi sacra. Lips. 1726. 4to.; J. F’. Hirt, diss. de 
parenthesi et generatim et speciatim sacra. Jen. 1745. 4to.; A. B. Spitzner, comment. 
philol. de parenthesi libris V. et N. T. accommodata. L. 1773. 8vo.; J. G. Lindner, 
2comment. de parenthesibus Johanneis. Arnstad. 1765. 4to. (A work de parenthesibus 
Paullinis is a desideratum.) Cf. also Clerici ars crit. II. 144 sqq. Lips. ; Baumgarten, 
ausfiihrl. Vortr. iiber die Hermeneutik S. 217 ff.; Keil, Lehrbuch der Hermen. S. 58f. 
{mostly incorrect). 

8 To throw away all external marks of a (true) parenthesis, and yet retain inter- 

71 


562 § 62. INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE; PARENTHESES. 


name of parentheses cannot be applied, in the first place, to inserted 
subordinate clauses, even though of considerable length, if they 
are connected in construction with the principal clause by a rela- 
tive or as Gen. absol. (Rom. xvi. 4; ix. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 6; 1 Cor. v.4; 

584 Luke i. 70; ii. 23; Hph. vi. 2; Acts iv. 36), still less to clauses 
in apposition, such as Jno. xiv. 22; xv. 26; 1 Pet. iii. 21; 2 Jno.1; 
Acts ix. 17; Mark vii. 2; 1 Cor. ix. 21, or to clauses annexed by 
way of explanation or reason to a concluded sentence, such as 

o20 Jno. iv. 6; 8,10 ; 'xi. 2; 51 f. 5.) xiii, 15 xyiill 6s xa OS eee 

hed vii, 8 £26; Matt. i.22f.; Luke i.55; Acts i.15; viii.16; Rom. 
viii. 836 ; 1 Cor. ii. 8; xv. 41; Gall ii. 8; Eph. ii. 8; Heb.aabes 
vill. 5; vii. 11; Rev. xxi. 25, or lastly, to those with which the 
continuation of the discourse, beyond the alleged parenthesis, is 
grammatically connected, as 1 Cor. xvi. 5 éXevoopat mpos vpas, 
oTav Maxedoviay dé (Makedoviav yap dvépyopuar), mpos tuas 6é 
TUYoV Tapapyevo, Where, indeed, Maxed. and tas, diépy. and trapap. 
stand obviously in mutual relation, Gal. iv. 24; Heb. iii. 4; Jno. 
xxi. 8; Rom. ix. 11; Mark v. 18; vii. 26. Parentheses are in- 
troduced either asyndetically or by cai (Fr. Rom. 1. 85) 6é or yap 
Rom. i. 18; vii. 1; Eph. v. 9; Heb. vii. 11; Jno. -[xvii. 10] 
xix. 81; 1 Tim. ii. 7; Acts xii. 3; xiii. 8; 1 Jno. 1. 2; andigieer 
them the construction either proceeds regularly, or is resumed 
(sometimes with some alteration) by the repetition of a word from 
the principal clause, with or without a conjunction, as in 2 Cor. 
v.8; 1Jno.i. 8. It does not, however, follow from the latter 
circumstance, that a series of words may be regarded as a paren- 
thesis, as Eph. i. 13 év 6 Kat bets, axovoavtes Tov Noyov THS adnOeias, 
TO evayyéov THS coTyplas UWav, ev @ Kal TicTEVoaVTEs EchpayiaOnreE 
etc. ii, 11 ff; 1 Cor: viii: 1 (see Mey:); 2 Cor. v: Off. ; Jnomxxins 
so too, where the construction which had been commenced is not 
grammatically resumed, but the thread of discourse is continued 
in a new and independent form, the structure is not parenthetic, 
but anacoluthic (§ 65), e.g. Rom. v. 12 ff. 

2. The number of parentheses in the N. T. is not small, but not 
so large as earlier expositors and editors (even Knapp) assumed. 
Besides the insertion of single words, which is common also in 
Greek and Latin authors (cf. nudius tertius), as in 2 Cor. viii. 3 
Kata Ovvaply, papTup®, K. Tapa Suvamw avOaiperor, Heb. x. 29 roc, 


punction, would be inconsistent. But in by far the greatest number of cases, commas 
suffice for distinguishing inserted words. Round brackets seem to be most suitable as 
parenthetical marks. 


§ 62, INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE; PARENTHESES. 563 


Soxetre, yeipovos a€wwOnoetat Tiywwpias,! 2 Cor. x.10 ai pév erictoral, 
dnolv, Bapeiar (see above, § 58, 9), xi. 21; Rom. iii. 5, there are 

in the historical books frequent explanations respecting place, 
time, occasion etc. expressed parenthetically, as in Acts xii. 3 585 
mposéGeto cvAXraPeiv kai Ilétpov—oav dé hwépat TOV altipov 

— ovetc.,i.15; xiili.8; Luke ix. 28 éyévero peta tT. NOyous TovTOUs, 
@sel nuépat oKTa, kai etc. (cf. Isocr. Phil. p. 216; Lucian. dial. 497 
mar. 1, 4),? Acts v. T éyéveto 5€, ws wpav tpidv Sudotnma, Kal 1) one 
yuvy etc., Matt. xv. 32 (cf. Lucian. dial. mar. 1,4; Schaef. Demosth. 524 
V. 888); Luke xxiii. 51; Jno. iii. 1 fv dvOpwros, Nuxddnpos Mt 
dvo“a avTe@, apyov tov Lovdaiwr, xix. 31 (Diog. L..8, 42); Luke 
Xili. 24 qwodrol, Néyw Uplv, SyrHcovow etc. Sometimes the nar- 
rator interrupts with such an explanation the direct discourse of 
another: Mark vii. 11 éav ern av@pwros: KopBav,6 éctiv Spor, 

5 day €& eu0d ddherpOfs, Ino. i. 39 of 88 etrovy aitd: papi, 6 
NévyeTar Epunvevomevov O1ddcKane, Tov péves ;® Sometimes 

an exhortation is thrust in in the same way, as Matt. xxiv. 15 f. 
dtav ldnte TO BdEAVYpA ... EGTOS EV TOTH aylw, 6 dvayLYdoKOoDV 
voeit@, TOoTE of ev TH Lovodaia etc. 

8. There is no parenthesis in Jno. xi. 80: vs. 30 is so far con- 
nected with vs. 29 as it was necessary to mention the. place to 
which Mary went; and after the narrator has completed the 
-account of her going out, he passes in vs. 31 to her attendants 


1 Aristoph. Acharn. 12 ras tot7’ @reicé pov, Soxets, thy kapdiay ; Villois. anecd. II. 24 
mécwy, tere, Ouyatépas .. . efédwxer ; 

2 The Greek idiom to which this has been compared by Kiihndl and others (the so 
called schema Pindaricum, see Fischer, Weller. III. 345 sq. ; Vig. p. 192 sq.; Hm. Soph, 
Trach. 517; Boeckh, Pindar. II. II. 684 sq.; J. V. Brigleb, diss. in loc. Luc. ix. 28, Jen. 
1739. 4to.) lies too remote, being almost exclusively poetic (Aiéihner II. 50 f.), and its 
application is not favored by éyévero, usually employed absolutely (nowhere éyévovro 
nucpa dxTo etc.). Further, Matt. xv. 32 also is to be explained in the same way as 
Luke ix. 28: 8ri #5 tjuépat tpets, mposuévoval mor according to the best Codd., where 
Fr., overlooking the loose manner in which such specifications of time are introduced, 
has printed (from D): #5 jjudpar tpets cist kat mposmév. etc., which is a manifest cor- 
rection. On Mark viii. 2, however, he has admitted the correctness of the common 
text. See also his letter Ueber die Verdienste Tholuck’s S.17. Also Luke xiii. 16 ty 
@noev 5 catavas, iS0d déka Kal dxT& &rn etc. I have no hesitation in taking, with 
Bengel, in the same way. , 

8 Different from this is the case in which the writer subjoins incidentally such an 
explanation to the words of another, and then proceeds in his own person, Jno. ix. 7 
Braye viva eis Tr. kokvuPhOpay TOD Sirwdu, 9 Epunveverat awegTAarp Evos. anijA- 
Oev ody etc., i. 42, 44; Matt. i. 22f.; xxi. 4f. In all these cases there is no trace of 
a parenthesis. Matt. ix. 6 is not so much a parenthesis as a blending of the oratio 
directa and indir. ; and in Heb. x. 8 the author introduces, indeed, his own words in 
the midst of the quotation, but he does this by means of a relative clause. 


564 §62. INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE; PARENTHESES. 


who went out also. In Jno. xix. 5 the narrative proceeds quite 
regularly, for the change of subject does not render a parenthesis 
necessary. In Matt. xvi. 26 also parenthetical marks appear to 
be unnecessary (though Schulz has retained them); for vs. 26 
586 adds to rip b€ Wwuy7v GyuiwOF an illustration of the value of the 
aruxyyn. In vs. 27 the reference is to vss. 25 and 26 inclusively ; 
no interruption of the construction can be perceived. In xxi. 4f. 
a remark is added by the narrator; but in vs. 6 the simple nar- 
rative continues. Similar is Jno. vi. 6. In Jno. i. 14 probably 
the words cai éeacdp. ... watpos were not regarded by the author 
as an insertion ; but, after the completion of the complex sentence, 
498 the summary wAjpys yap. kK. adyO. is added in grammatical inde- 
bthed. nendence, somewhat as in Phil. iii. 19 or Mark xii. 40. Luke 
vil. 29f. contain no parenthesis (Lchm.), but words of Christ, 
who previously, and again in vs. 81, is speaking. In Mark ii. 17 
the assumption of a parenthesis is not sufficient to explain the 
construction, but vss. 16-19 are expressed in oratio variata, see 
525 § 63 II. 1. There is no parenthesis in Jno. vi. 23; it is con- 
ihe nected with vv in vs. 22. The proposal of Ziegler (in Gabler’s 
Journ. fiir theolog. Lit. I. 155) to include in a parenthesis the 
words kai joav ... yuvatcav Acts v. 12 ff. has, very properly, found 
no favor with editors (except Schott); and those critics also who 
have suspected something spurious in vss. 12-15 (Hichhorn, Beck, 
Kiihnél) have been too precipitate. The words wste Kata tas 
mAatelas éxdépew Tors dobeveis etc. are very aptly connected with 
vs. 14; the two facts, that the people held the apostles in high 
estimation, and that the number of believers increased, readily 
explain why the sick were brought out into the streets. The 
words, indeed, connect themselves with vs. 14 far more neatly than 
with vs. 11. Are we to understand by woAXa onpeia Kal Téepata 
(€v 7 Xa®@) merely the preceding events, the effect of which 
was wsre expépew etc. ? To assume this would be to sacrifice the 
perspicuity of the narrative. For what else could those zoAAa 
onpeca have been but miracles of healing? Thus in the words 
@ste Kata etc. what had been only briefly indicated in vs. 11 recurs 
in another connection to be narrated more in detail (vs. 15 f.). 
Accordingly, I cannot bring myself to make with Lchm. vs. 14 a 
parenthesis. On the other hand, in Acts x. 36 Tov Aéyov is probably 
to be connected with vs. 37, and the words odros ete., which as 
a complete sentence express a leading thought that Peter could 
not well annex by a relative, form a parenthesis; and in vs. 37 


§ 62. INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE; PARENTHESES. 565 


the speaker, after this interruption, proceeds by an amplification 
of the thought. 

4. In the Epistles also parentheses, especially short ones, occur, 
which contain sometimes a limitation, 1 Cor. vii. 11, sometimes a 587 
corroboration, 1 Tim. ii. 7; 1 Thess. ii. 5, sometimes a reason or 
more precise explanation, Rom. vii. 1; 2 Cor. v. 7; vi. 2; x. 4; 
eeeeeeGal, 11.8; Eph. ii.5; v..9; Jas. iv.14; 2 Thess. i. 10; 

1 Jno. i. 2; 1 Tim. ili. 5, or any thought whatever that obtruded 
itself upon the writer (Col. iv. 10; Rom. i. 13). But we find in 
the Epistles some parentheses also of greater length, as in Heb. 
vii. 20 f. of pev yap ... es TOV ai@va, since Ka& dcov ov yawpls 
opkwpocias vs. 20 is obviously connected with vs. 22 cata tocodto 
kpeitrovos etc.; and in Rom. ii. 138-15, since vs. 16 év iuépa te 
xpwet etc. is after all most appropriately connected with «pv@jcovras 
vs. 12, for cpwvet glances back at «piOncovtar. Vss. 13-15, however, 
constitute an independent group of thoughts, appended to vs. 12 
as explanatory: it is the doing, not the hearing, of the law which 
is required, vs. 13; but the righteous heathen even are doers of 499 
the law, vss. 14,15. But many lengthened insertions are not 
parentheses but digressions, inasmuch as they check merely the 526 
progress of thought and not the sequence of construction. So in Met 
1 Cor. viii. 1-3 Paul, after grammatically concluding the clause 
- qepl dé... éyouev, allows himself, from 1 yvaots to tm’ av’tod, to 
digress on yv@ous in relation to ayamn, and, resuming the thread 
of the discourse, returns in vs. 4 zepi tis Bpdcews odv ete. to vs. 1. 
Similar digressions occur in 1 Cor. xv. 9,10 and 2 Cor. iii. 14-18 
Civ. 1 is connected with iii. 12). In Rom. xiii. 9 f. by cat rodro0 
eldores Paul returns to pydevi pndev ddetrere, which is to be men- 
tally repeated. Finally, in most of the passages usually adduced 
as parentheses, there is neither parenthesis nor digression: In 
Tit. i. 1 ff. xara miotw is connected with amooTonXos, and the 
destination of Paul’s apostleship is fully brought out in the clause 
kK. Tiot. ... atwviov, while to GAs aiwy. is appended the relative 
clause jv as far as Geod. Likewise in Rom. i. 1-7, where even 
Schott in his last edition assumes two parentheses, the whole 
passage flows with one unbroken thread, only the main conceptions 
in vss. 3 f. 5, 6 are amplified by relative clauses. So also in Col. 
iii. 12-14, where dveyouevos (corresponding to évdvcacbe) is a 
modal specification of waxpoOupiav (perhaps also of rpadryta), but 
is itself re-enforced by cafes ete. Only obtw cai bweis may appear 
to interrupt the structure, as the thought is already expressed 


588 


500 
6th ed. 


527 
Tth ed. 


566 § 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 


through «a@@s in the connection of the preceding clause ; but if 
vapifouevot be there supplied, the construction becomes regular. 
In Heb. xii. there is the less ground for regarding vss. 20, 21 as 
a parenthesis (Lehm.), since in vs. 22 mposernrv@ate is repeated 
from vs. 18 ; so that a new sentence begins, an affirmative opposed 
to the negative group of sentences vss. 18-21. In 1 Cor. i. 8 és 
refers to Xpiotos vs. T, and vss. 5 and 6 contain no parenthesis. 
In Rom. xvi. 4 the two connected relative clauses occasion no real 
break in the structure and cannot be regarded as parenthetic. In 
1 Pet. iii. 6 ayaPorrovodcar is connected with éyernOnre, and the 
words ws... Téxva are not parenthetic. In Eph. iii. 5 6 érépaus 
etc. is joined to éy puotnpio tod X. vs. 4; and in 2 Pet. i. 5 
(Schott) avto todro b€ or. rrapeuevéyxavtes stands parallel to as 
mavTa ... Sedwpnuévns etc., and vs. 4 is an explanatory relative 
clause to the words da d0&ns Kai apeths. On 1 Jno. iv. 17 ff ; 
Eph. i. 21 hardly any remark is required, In Eph. ii. 11 o/ Ney. ... 
yvetpoT. iS an apposition to ta €@vn év capxi, and the repetition of 
é7t in vs. 12 cannot convert what precedes into a parenthesis. 
Lastly, anacolutha occur in Col. iii. 16 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4~8 Gin the lat- 
ter passage occasioned by vs. 8, see § 63,1. 1 p.569) and 1 Tim. i.3 ff. 


In Eph. iii. 1 ff. the Predicate is not 6 décpuos, for then, if the meaning 
were ego Paulus vinculis detineor, the article would be omitted; and the 
sense J am the prisoner of Christ (kar é€oxynv), does not recommend itself. 
The simplest mode of explaining the passage is, after Theodoret, to rec- 
ognize in tovrov yapw vs. 14 the resumption of the thought interrupted in 
vs. 1; especially as the intercession ws. 14 sqq. finds its appropriate occa- 
sion in the very fact that Paul had been by his imprisonment withdrawn 
from his personal labors, and rovrov xapw also in vs. 1 receives its natural 
import. With far less probability others join iv. 1 to iii. 1, since there 
6 déoptos seems to refer to éy® 6 déoptos. Cf. Cramer, translation of Eph. 
p- 71 ff., who quotes and tests other conjectures, and Harless. 


§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES; 
ANACOLUTHON, ORATIO VARIATA. 


I. 1. Anacoluthon?! occurs when the construction with which a 


l Hm. Vig. 894 sqq. (who explains poetic anacolutha almost exclusively) ; Poppo, 
Thue. I. I. 360 sqq. ; Miihner II. 616 ff.; Mdv. 253 ff.; F. Richter, de praecip. graec. 
lingu. anacoluth. Mihlh. 1827 f. 2 spec. 4to.; v. Wannowski, Syntax. anomal. graec. 
pars cet. Lips. 1835. 8vo.; F’. W. Engelhardt, Anacoluth. Plat. spec. 1-3, Gedani 1834 ff. 

to. (cf. Gernhard, Cic. offic. p. 441 sq. ; Matthiae, de anacoluth. ap. Ciceron. in Wolf, 
Analect. lit. HI. 1 sqq.). For the N. T. Fritzsche, Conjectan. spec. 1 (Lips. 1825, 8vo.) 
p: 33 sq. 


§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 567 


sentence began is not grammatically pursued ;— either because 589 
the writer is wholly diverted’ from the structure adopted at the 
beginning by something intervening (especially by parentheses, 
see Beier, Cic. off. II. 865), or because for the sake of a preferable 
mode of expression (Weber, Demosth. 558) he frames the close of 
his sentence otherwise than the commencement required.!. Hence 
anacolutha are sometimes involuntary, sometimes intentional. 
To the latter class belong also those which have a rhetorical ground 
(Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 221), or which originate, as Hm. Vig. 895 
expresses it, a motu animi vel ab arte oratoris vim aliquam captante. 
In writers of great mental vivacity and activity, more taken up 
with the thought than with the expression, anacolutha are most 
frequently to be expected. Hence they are especially numerous 
in the epistolary style of the Apostle Paul. We specially point 
out the following: Acts xv. 22 &ofev tots drocToXols... 
éexeEapévous avodpas €€ avtav méwrpar... ypawavTes Sut yYeupos 
avta@v (Lys. in Eratosth. 7 é0fev avtois ... dsTep ... TET oLn- 
xotes, Antiphon. p. 613 Reisk. é0fev adr Bovdopevyn BéXrvov 
evar peta Setrvov dodvat, Tais KAutaimyjotpas Ths TouTov pnTpos 
vroOnKais Gua Svakovovaa, vice versa Plat. lege. 3, 686 d. ao- 
BrEéwras pds TodTOV TOV aTOXOV, ov TépL SvareydspmcOa, ESoEE prot 
TayKaros eivac—as, in general, often with éo& —, Plat. Apol. 501 
- 21¢.; Xen. Cyr. 6,1, 31; Lucian. Astrol. 3; Schwarz, soloecism. p. aoe 
86 sq.) ;? Acts xx. 3 7oijoas pivas Tpels, yevouevns avT@ ém1Bounis eae 
» +. MéAXOVTL avayerOut eis THY Zupiav, éyéveto yvopun, etc. In 
Rom. xvi. 25-27 76 dvvapévw ... wove coded Oecd dia ’Inood Xp., 
@ » Sofa eis Tovs aidvas, Paul is led away from the intended con- 
struction by his extended statement respecting God in vss. 25, 26, 
and, instead of immediately annexing 7) d0£a eis Tods aidvas, forms 
arelative clause out of the contents of the doxology, as if the Dative 
Gem concluded a sentence. Similar is Acts xxiv. 5, where é«pat7- 
cauev VS. 6 should without anything further have been added to 
the participle ebpovres tov divdSpa rodtov ; Luke, however, led astray 
by the relative clause 605 xa/d ete. has made it, too, a part of the 
relative sentence: dv kal éxpar. More remarkable are the ana- 
colutha in periods of smaller extent :® as in Acts xix. 34 ésruyvortes, 


Or 
CO 
= 


1 Accordingly, in 1 Jno. i. 1 ff. there is no anacoluthon, as vs. 3, by a grammatically 
regular repetition of the words of the first verse after the intermediate clause vs. 2, is 
connected strictly with the beginning of the sentence. 

2 In Latin cf. Hirt. bell. afric. 25 dum haec ita fierent, rex Juba, cognitis ..., non est 
visum, ete. Plin. ep. 10, 34. 

3 One of the most singular is perhaps that adduced by Kypke 11. 104: Hippocr. morb. 


568 § 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 


Tt ‘Iovdaics éorte, povn éyéveto pla éx mdvtwv (instead of éfpovncar 
aravtes), Mark ix. 20 Sev (6 rais) abrév, 7d rvebwa evOds eomdpakev 
avtov (instead of wtzo tod mvevpatos éorapayn), to which Fr. 
compares Anthol. pal. 11, 488 (7) kayo & adrov idav, TO oTOMAa fou 
dédeTat, see also Plat. lege. 6, 769¢. Further, in Luke xi. 11 tiva 
€€ UuoV TOV TaTEpa alTHoE 6 Vids apToY, wn AOov éeTrLdM@TEL AUTO ; 
the question, will he give? pre-supposes a protasis: a father when 
asked for bread by his son, or, a father whom his son asks for bread 
(Matt. vii. 9). So too in Acts xxiii. 80 pnvueions por emuBovdys 
els Tov avdpa péArew EceoOat, Where the construction should have 
continued perrovaons écecOar; whereas wédAdeev might have been 
employed, had the clause been introduced somehow thus: pavu- 
cavrwy émBovarnv, etc. Cf. § 45,6. Probably the construction 
was intentionally altered in 1 Cor. xii. 28 ods ev EOeTo 6 Oeds ev TH 
éxxrAnola Tp@tov atoaToXovs, SevTEpov Tpodijras, Tpitoyv SdacKadous 
etc., where Paul at first meant to write ods wey ... amroaT., ods O€ 
mpop. etc. ; but instead of employing mere juxtaposition, he pre- 
ferred an arrangement according to rank, so that now ods pép 
stands quite isolated, and the subsequent abstracts also, érecra 
duvapes, are appended to the simple ero, which alone the writer 
still had in his mind. Likewise in Tit. i. 8 the Apostle, by the 
introduction of tov Adyor avtod in connection with édavépwoe Se 
etc., seizes on a more suitable turn of expression. Cf. besides 
2 Cor. vii. 5 (1 Cor. vii. 26). Still more incoherent are the com- 
posite parts of an anacoluthic period in Jno. vi. 22 7H émavpioy o 
dynos ... lov, STL... (GAXa O€ FADE TWAOLApLA ...), OTE OVY Ei OED 
529 0 dyXos etc., where efdev in consequence of the words inserted 
ith el. has acquired a more comprehensive object than belonged to ‘dev. 
In Gal. ii. 6 azo 6€ Trav Soxovvtwv eival Tt— Orrolol TroTe HaaVv, OVSEV 
502 por duahépes — éwol yap ot Soxodvtes ovdev tposavébevto, where the 
bth el. Apostle should have continued in the Passive, but is so disturbed 
by the parenthetic clause that he frames a new sentence with yap.1 


vulg. 5, 1 ev “HAL: ) Tod KnTwpod yuvh wupeTds elxev adthy Evvexhs kal pdpyara mlvovca 
ovdev apedeeto. Cf. also Bar. 1, 9 peta 7d arrotkioat NaBovxvedovdcop Tov “lexovlay... 
kal Hyayev abrdv, etc. Act. apocr. p. 69. 

1 In sense Herm.’s explanation (Progr. de locis ep. ad Gal. p. 7) agrees with this. 
He assumes, however, an aposiopesis after amd 5¢ tay Sox. ... 71. See in opposition, 
Fritzsche, 20 Progr. p. 18. (Fritzschior. Opuse. 211 sq.). The latter considers the words 
amd... 71, With which as he thinks vs. 5. should conclude, as parallel to 8:4 5€ tovds 
Tapeisdktous Wevdad., and renders: propter irreptitios autem et falsos sodales (se cireumcidi 
non passus est), guippe qui... quibus...ut...a viris autem, qui auctoritate valerent 
(circumcisionis necessitatem sibi imponi non sivit). See, on the other hand, Meyer. I 
have found no reason to give up my view of the passage. 


§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 569 


So in vs. 4f. dua 5€ tods mapeusdxtous wevdadérgous ... ois ovdé 594 
mpos wpav el€auev TH UToTayy etc., the parenthetical insertion in 
vs. 4 occasioned the anacoluthon. The Apostle might either have 
said: on account of the false brethren (to please them) ... we did 
not cause Titus to be circumcised ; or, we could by no means (in 
this respect) give way to the false brethren. The two constructions 
are here blended.! In Rom. ii. 17 ff., vss. 17-20 constitute the 
protasis, and vs. 21 begins the apodosis. Paul, having continued 
through several clauses the thought which he brought out as 
protasis, loses sight of e¢ vs. 17, and in appending the apodosis 
vs. 21 falls into another construction by means of odv, which 
particle indicates an anacoluthon. The explanation differs but 
little, if ody be taken for a conjunction employed to resume and 
sum up the protasis (Klotz, Devar. II.718 sq.), as it very frequently 
in Greek authors begins the apodosis. For the words 0 duddcKap 
etc. 0 enpvcowr etc., whether they be taken as a question or as a 
reproachful assertion, alter the natural course of the sentence. 
That is to say, after the protasis e dé etc. the sentence would 
simply run: thow shouldst carry into effect this knowledge of the 
law by a corresponding conduct (cf. vs.23). That the construction 
selected by Paul is more forcible is obvious.?, The anacoluthon 
in the following passages is harsher: In 2 Pet. ii. 4 the protasis 
ei yap 0 Geos ayyéXov ovk ébe(cato etc. has no grammatical apodosis. 
The Apostle meant to say: neither (much less) will he spare these 520 
Jalse teachers. But as one instance of divine punishment sug- Tth ed. 
gested itself to his mind after another (vss. 4-8), he first in vs. 9 592 
reverts with an altered construction to the thought (generalizing 503 
it also) which was to form the apodosis. In Rom. vy. 12, to the Sth ed. 
words asmep 50° évos avOp@rov 1) dpaptia els Tov Kdocpov eishrOe 
one might have expected the apodosis: ottw 60 évos avOpwrrou 
(Xpictod) dSixatootvn Kati Sia ths Sixatoctvys 7) fon. But, by the 


1 To repeat, with Fr. (Progr. I. in ep. ad Gal. p. 24, Opuse. p. 178 sq.), after da 5é 
TOUS Tapesdktous Wevdad., the words ov« jvayKdoOn wepitm. (5 Tiros) is no easier at all. 
Paul, unless we regard him as an inexpert writer, could only omit these words in case 
the appended relative clauses had made him lose sight of the commencement of the 
period. But in this way the explanations of the sentence, which is at any rate irregular, 
amount pretty much to the same thing. Besides, there would be no singularity of 
style in the statement: but not even Titus... was compelled to be circumcised. And 
because of the false brethren stealthily brought in, he did not allow himself to be compelled (to 
be circumcised), 

2 In a grammatical point of view cf. Xen. C. 6, 2, 9, where the commencement ézet 
dt... HAGov etc. § 12is resumed in the words és ody tadra Hxovoey 6 oTpaTds Tod Kupov, 
and the apodosis connected with it, 

72 


593 


531 


Tth ed. 


570 § 63, BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 


explanation annexed in vss. 12-14 to elsjAOev 7) dpaptia Kal 6 
Odvaros, the regular construction is broken off (though in és éove 
TUTOS ToD péAXOVTOS AN intimation of the antithesis is given); and 
besides, the Apostle recollects that not merely a simple parallel 
between Adam and Christ might be drawn (as7rep ... ows), but 
that something greater and more pervasive has proceeded from 
Christ than from Adam. Hence the epanorthosis 7oAA@ parrop, 
which was noticed by so early an expositor as Calvin. The con- 
nection is resumed in the words aA oty @s 70 TapatTwpa etc. 
vs. 15, which logically absorb the apodosis, and in ei yap... awé@avov 
the substance of the protasis vs. 12 is briefly recapitulated. After 
this Paul combines vs. 18 the twofold parallel (likeness and un- 
likeness) in one final result. In a similar way must be explained 
1 Tim. i. 8 ff. Kaéos wapexddeca entirely wants an apodosis, 
which escaped the attention of Paul while he was introducing 
directly into the protasis the object of wapaxadety. ‘The apodosis 
should run thus: ott Kal viv wapakado, iva Tapayyetdys etc. 
To consider vss. 5-17 as a parenthesis, as even Bengel does, is 
wholly unnatural ; it is still more absurd, however, to take Kaas 
for an untranslatable particle of transition (Heydenreich). Many 
ancient and modern expositors regard Rom. ix. 22 ff. as a very 
singular and in part double anacoluthon ; see the different views 
in Reiche. But it is probably simpler to join cai iva vs. 22 to 
nveyxev, and at the end of vs. 23 to conceive the apodosis as 
suppressed: Jf God, determined to show forth his wrath, bore with 
all long-suffering the vessels of his wrath, ... also in order to 
make known the riches etc....: what then? what shall we say? 
(Gnust not, then, all censure be silent ?). The bearing of the oxedn 
dpyhs is not merely regarded as a proof of his paxpoé., but, at the 
same time, as occasioned by the purpose of bringing to view the 
riches of his glory which he destined for the oxevn €éd€ovs. The 
instant destruction of the cxevn dpyjs (in this case the unbelieving 
Jews) would have been perfectly just; but God endured them 
with long-suffering (thus tempering his justice with kindness), 
both the aim and the result of this being the more striking display 
(by the contrast) of the greatness of his grace towards the oxedn 
éréous. The dé in vs. 22 is not odv, and hence the continuation of 
the thought expressed in vss. 20, 21 is not probable. That God 
is perfectly free in bestowing the tokens of his grace, had been 
sufficiently stated. The creature cannot contend with the Creator, 
— that is enough. But, resumes Paul, God is not so rigorous as 


§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 571 


he might be, and have no fear of the censure of men. [It is 504 
probably still simpler, without supplying an apodosis, to take ec... btiel 
nveyxev as the condition, and xai (sc. Hveyeey) wa vs. 23 as the 
conclusion: if God... endured ..., he endured them also or at 

the same time to the end that, etc.} As to Acts x. 86 see above, 

§ 62,3 p.564. On Rom. xii. 6 ff. see below, Il. 1 p.578. Col.i. 21 

is in any event an anacoluthon, whether we read with Lchm. azo- 
KatTnAAaynte, or With the text. rec. amoxatyANaéev, On 2 Pet. 

i, 17 see § 45, 6 b. p. 851, and on 1 Cor. xii. 2 Meyer. 


In several other passages where expositors have thought they found an 
anacoluthon, I can discover nothing of the sort. Rom. vii. 21 eéipicxw apa 
Tov vomov TO PéAovTe emot worety TO KaAOV, OTL eol TO KaKOV TapdKetTat, Where 
according to Fr. (Conject. p. 50) there is a blending of two constructions, 
has by this scholar been subsequently explained otherwise, that is, in 
accordance with Knapp’s view ; see above, § 61, 5 p. 557. Likewise, in 
Heb. viii. 9 there is no blending of two constructions (Fr. Conject. p. 34). 
The quotation from the Sept. év jpépa érAaBopévov pov rhs xeupds adrav 
may be an unusual expression, but it is not incorrect. The form of the 
expression was unquestionably occasioned by the Hebrew (for it is a 
quotation from Jer. xxxi. 32) ota pn ona. The participle is used 
instead of the Infin., as in Jer. xxix. 2; cf. Bar, ii. 28. Joik Petia? 
areHovo. € is grammatically connected with the words of the quotation, 
ovtos éyevnOn etc. In Rom. i. 26, 27 a decision is difficult because the 
reading varies between dpoiws 6€ kai and dpolws te xat. The former 
appears to have more external evidence in its support; and Bornem. 
(neues theol. Journ. VI. 145) has preferred it (as well as Lchm.), and 
endeavored to vindicate it by the frequent recurrence of the expression in 
the N. T. Matt. xxvi. 35; xxvii. 41 (Mark xv. 31); Luke v. 10; x. 32; 
1 Cor. vii. 3 f.; Jas. ii. 25, and also in Greek authors, as Diod. Sic. 17, 
111. But as none of these passages is preceded by re, they are inadequate ; 
cf., however, the passage quoted by Fr. from Plat. symp. 186 e.') re otv 
iarpixy) ... @savTws O€ Kal yuuvaotixny. Grammatically, therefore, the 
reading supported by the most authoritative Codd. may be defended, and 
would even be very appropriate, as the Apostle obviously wishes to give 
the greater prominence to what was done by the dppeves (he dwells on it 
in vs. 27, severely condemning the wickedness). Now comes the question 
whether either or both of these two readings causes an anacoluthon ? 
With the reading 6. re xai [ Cod. Sin.] there is no more an anacoluthon 
than in the Latin nam et feminae...et similiter etiam mares. On the 594 
other hand, if we read éy. dé xaé the natural sequence is broken, exactly 
as in Latin et feminae... similiter vero etiam mares. Klotz, Devar. I. 532 
740. In Heb. iii. 15 we must probably seek for the apodosis in vs. 16 ith ed, 
tives yap quinam ete., as Bleek, Tholuck, and others have done. In 2 Cor. 


505 
6th ed. 


595 


572 § 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 


viii. 3 aidaiperou is connected with éavrods eédwxav vs. 5. In 1 Cor. vy. 11, 
in the words 76 rovovrw pyde cvveoOiew we ought not with Erasmus to find 
an anacoluthon, but an intensive repetition of cvvavapytyv. In Jas. ii. 2 ff. 
the anacoluthon disappears, if vs. 4 cai od etc. be taken interrogatively, 
as is done now by most critics, and also by Lchm. Jno. xiii. 1 contains 
no grammatical anacoluthon; the difficulty must be disposed of hermeneu- 
tically. 1 Cor. ix. 15, if Wa before tis is spurious (Tdf. has restored it), 
would be not so much an anacoluthon as an aposiopesis, see Mey. Lastly, 
in Eph. iii. 18 the participles are probably to be connected with the clause 
iva e€vayvonrte etc., see Mey. in loc. 


2. The anacolutha hitherto elucidated are of such a nature that 
they might occur in any language. But in Greek certain peculiar 
species of anacoluthon became established by usage, which must 
now be mentioned : 

a. If a sentence is continued by means of participles, these, 
when at a distance from the governing verb, not unfrequently 
assume an abnormal case (see Vig. p. 8337 sqq.; Rost 704), e.g. Eph. 
iv. 2 f. mapaxar® twas... TepiTaTicar ... dvEeYOMEVOL AAAHA@Y 
év ayarn, oT ovda fortes etc. (as if the exhortation were direct: 
mepiTatnaate), also i. 18 (where Meyer makes unnecessary dif- 
ficulties) ; Col. iii. 16 6 Adyos ToD Xpiotod évoixeitwo ev viv 
mAouclas, €v macy copia didadoKovTes Kal vovdeTodvTES 
Eautous etc. ; li. 2 va TapaxdnOaciv ai Kapdiat aitov cup BiBa- 
afévtres év ayaty etc. (as if wapaxandetoCar were referred to the 
persons themselves), Col. 11. 10; 2 Cor. ix. 10f. 0 ésrvyopnyap ... 
xopnynacar Kal TANOUVAL TOV TTTOGOV UMOV ... ULOV, EV TaVTL TOV- 
reCopevor etc.; vs. 12f. 1 dcaxovia (€otl) mepiccevovoa Sia 
TOMY EVYApLTTLOV, Sia THS SoKimHs T. Svakovias TavTns SoEafovTeEs 
tov Oeov (as if dtt modXoi evyapioctovow had preceded) cf. Xen. 
Cyr. 1,4, 26. See also 2 Cor. 1. 7;. vil. 0; Phil. 1.29 1g 
2 Pet. ili. 3; Acts xxvi. 3; Jude 16. Cf. in general, Markland, 
Lys. p. 364, Reiske Vol. V.; Buttm. Soph. Philoct. p. 110; Seidler, 
Eurip. Iphig. T. 1072; Kiihner II. 377 f.; Schwarz, soloecism. p. 89, 
also Stallb. Plat. apol. p. 135 sq. and sympos. p. 83. Some of the 
anacolutha of this sort may be considered as intentional. The 
thoughts when expressed by the Nom. of participles receive 
ereater prominence; whereas the oblique cases merge them rather 
in the sentence as a whole (singularly so in Jude 16), and are 
marked as accessory. But most of them are occasioned by the 
author’s having intended, in the preceding part of the sentence, 
to employ a different substantive, kindred in sense. Besides, ef. 
Evang. apocr. pp. 169, 446. 


§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 573 


Of another sort are Mark xii. 40; Phil. iii. 18 f., on which see § 59, 8 b. 592 
p- 532. In Rom. xiii. 11 cai rodro ciddres is connected with odedAcre vs. 8 ; Tth ed, 
and 1 Pet. ii. 16 connects itself, as the ideas suggest, with the Imperative 
brordynre in vs. 13. : 


b. Frequently after a participle the construction passes over into 
a finite verb, which is apt to be accompanied by 6é; as, Col. i. 26 
TANPAcat TOV AOYo Tod GEeod, TO MYOTHPLOY TO ATOKEKPVLLEVOV 
a0 TOV aioverv ...vuvi dé Efavepw Oy instead of vuvi dé davepwhv 
(cf. Her. 6,25; Thuc. 1,67), 1 Cor. vii. 387 0s €xtnxev &v TH Kapdia, 
pn Exov avayKny, eEovclav Sé éxyer (instead of éywv).1 We must 506 
not, with Meyer, refer to this head 1 Cor. iv. 14; nor Eph. ii. 8, Shed 
where 7uev is parallel to avectpadnyev. This transition occurs 
without 6é in Eph. i. 20 cata tiv évépyeav ... tv evipynoev ev TO 
XpicT@, éyelpas avrov ... Kal ExaOucerv, 2 Cor. vi. 9; Jno. v. 44; 
Col. i. 6 (Paus.10,9,1). As to 2 Jno. 2 see below, I. 1 p.578. An 
effort to attain a more simple structure, or to give prominence to 
the second thought (particularly in 2 Cor. vi. 9; cf. Xen. Cyr. 
5, 4,29), is not unfrequently the cause of such an anacoluthon. 
Heb. viii. 10 (from the O. T.) is to be explained thus: airy 7 
Sia jKn, tv SiaPjnoopat TO olkw “Icpajr... d1d0v0s vopovs pov els 
Ty Ovdvotay avTov Kal él Kapdias ad’Tav éeriypaw avtovs. To 
render xai before émruyp. by etiam, as some (Bohme, for instance) 
do, is forced, and far from being favored by x. 16. As to Jno. 
i. 32 teBéapar TO veda KaTaBaivoyv... kal Ewetvev er avTov 
(cf. vs. 33 ed’ Ov ay idns 76 TvEedWa KaTaBatvoy Kal wévOV eT avTOV), 
the correct explanation has already been indicated by BCrus. Cf. 
also Schaef. Dion. H. p. 81 and Demosth. Il. 75; V. 487,578, also 
* Plutarch. IV. 323; Blume, Lycurg. p. 147; Mtth. 8. 1527f. In 
the Codd. in such passages the participle is sometimes found as a 
correction, e.g. in Eph. as above, where Lchm. nevertheless has 
adopted xaficas as genuine. A kindred sort of anacoluthon 
occurs in 2 Cor. v. 6 ff. Oappodvtes odv mavTote ... Oappodpuev dé 
Kai evdookovmev, Where Paul, after several intermediate clauses, 
repeats @appodvres, which he intended to construe with evédox., in 596 
the form of the finite verb. 

c. A clause, which had begun with 671, concludes with the 
(Acc. and) Infin., as if that particle had not been employed at all ; 
as, Acts xxvii. 10 Dewpd, O71 peta UBpews Kal ToAAHS Cnpias... 
mérrELY EcecOas Tov TAody cf. Plat. Gorg. 453 b. éyo yap eb 


1 The case examined by Hm. Soph. EL. p. 153, and Buttm. Demosth. Mid. p. 149, is 
different. 


574 § 63, BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 


” > e 5) \ / ” Ayah 5 / 4 j 

to@ OTL, ws euavtov TelOw, eitep ... Kai eve eivat TOUTwY Eva, see 
above, § 44, note 2, p. 889. On the other hand, in Aelian. 12, 39 
the construction ¢aci Yeuipaww is founded on an Acc. with the 


534 Inf., but is followed by péya édpover, as if 67s had preceded. Similar 


7th ed, 


507 
6th ed. 


597 


is Plaut. Trucul. 2, 2,62. With this may be compared also Jno. 
vill. 54 Oy tpets AEyeTe OTe Oeos vay eats (where Bedv Lpav eivat 
might have been used). This, however, is rather to be considered 
as Attraction ; see below. 

d. The principal verb in the sentence does not regularly cor- 
respond to the Nominative or Acc. placed at the beginning of the 
sentence (casus pendentes, Wannowski, Syntax. anomal. p. 54 sq. ; 
see, however, H. L.-Z. 1836. I. 388); as, 1 Jno. ii. 24 dpeis, 6 
NKOVTATE aT apyYNs, ev vty pevéeTo, and vs. 27 Kal vuels, TO ypicpa 
0 €haBete aT avrtod ev buiv pwever and you, the anointing, which ... 
abides in you. In both passages, tuets, if placed in the relative 
clause (Lchm.), would in that position of precedence be too em- 
phatic. Luke xxi. 6 tatra a Oewpetre, EXevoovTar )pépat, ev ais 
ov aheOncetar NiPos emt ALOw etc. these things which ye behold, — 
there will come days in which (even to the last stone they will be 
destroyed) not a stone (of them) will be left on another. So also 
in Jno. vi. 89; vii. 88; xv. 2°; Matt. vi. 243 xi. 36> Reve 
iti. 12,21; vi. 8. Cf. Exod. ix. 7; Xen. Cyr. 2, 3, 53) @eqeiaee 
Aele teal: 2 Cor. xii. 1T pH Teva ov aréctadrka Tpos bpas, dv 
aUTOU errrEovéxTnTa Las; for, have I sent to you any one of those 
etc. inorder to defraud you? Rom. viil.876 advvatov Tod vopou, 
év @ noOéver ...0 Oeds Tov EavTodD viov Téurbas ... KaTEKpLWE THY 
dpaptiav ev Th capKi, what to the law was impossible ... God con- 
demned, sending his Son, sin in the flesh, for, that God did, and 
condemned etc. Here, however, 76 advy. may also be regarded as 
a predicate placed before a proposition complete in itself, and may 
be resolved 0 yap advvatév éote, like Heb. viii. 1 cefadatov ert Tots 
AEeyouevols, TOLovTOY Eyomev apxepéa etc. see § 82, 7 p. 231; ef. 
Kiuhner II. 156. 


Several critics, Olsh. among them, have supposed that there is an Accus. 
absol. (?) in Acts x. 36 tov Adyov bv dméoTeElA€ Tols viois “Iopayd ete. the 
word, which (or which word) he sent first to the children of Israel (namely, 
the word vs. 35 év wavrt e6ve etc.). Yet see § 62, 3 p. 564. 

An anacoluthon peculiar to the N.T. sometimes occurs, where the 
writer proceeds in the words of an O.'T. statement instead of in his own, 
e.g. Rom. xv. 3 kal yap 6 Xpioros odx éavTd npecer, dAAG, KaOds yeyparrat, 
of dvewdiopot Tov dvediCovTwv oe érérecay ex eve (instead of — but, to please 


§ 63, BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. = 575 


God, he submitted to the cruelest reproaches) vs. 21; ix. 7; cf. 1 Cor. 
ii. 9; ili. 21; Heb. iii. 7. Yet see below, § 64, 7 p. 598. 


e. Under the head of anacoluthon comes also the use of péy 
without a subsequent parallel clause (made prominent by 6é), 
Hm. Vig. 841 sq. In this case either 

a) the parallel member is easily to be supplied from the clause 
with vév, being ina manner included in it, as in Heb. vi. 16 av@pwzroe 
peev yap Kata Tod pelfovos oprvover men swear by the greater, but 
God can swear only by himself, cf. vs. 13 (Plat. Protag. 354 a.), 
yet this wév is doubtful [and wanting also in Cod. Sin.]; Col. ii. 238 
ata éote NOyov pev ExovTa aodias év eHedoOpyncKela Kai etc. which, 
indeed, have an appearance of wisdom, but in fact are not (Xen. 
An. 1, 2,1), Rom. x. 1, where perhaps Paul purposely avoided 
the painful antithesis (which is brought out in vs. 3 but softened 
by a compliment), see further 1 Cor. v. 3. Cf. Xen. Hier. 1, 7; 
7,4; Mem. 3,12,1; Plat. Phaed. 58a.; Aristoph. pax 13; see 
Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 105; Held, Plutarch. A. Paull. p. 123. Or 

8) the antithetic member is evidently added, but in another 
construction ; as, Rom. xi. 13 f. éf’ dcov pév odvy eiul éyw eOvav 
ambatonos, THY Siaxoviay pov Sokdlw, elas rapatnidcw pov Ti 
adapxa ete. Here the clause with de lies wrapt up in e’zws rapat., 
instead of Paul’s writing regularly : inasmuch as I am the apostle 
of the Gentiles, I glorify mine office (preaching zealously to the 
Gentiles), but I have in this the benefit of the Jews in view (1 will 
thus render the Jews emulous), I am, indeed, in fact an apostle 
to the Gentiles, but at the same time in purpose an apostle to the 
Jews. Or 

y) the construction is entirely broken off, and the parallel clause 
must be gathered by the reader from the sequel, e.g. Acts i. 1 tov 
wev TPOTOV Noyou éTToNoaunv TEpi TavTwV... avedjpOn. Now the 
writer ought to proceed: and the history from this point of time 
‘(the Ascension) J will narrate now in the second part of my work ; 
but by the mention of the apostles vs. 3 he is led to refer to Christ’s 
appearance after his resurrection, and connects immediately with 
this the continuation of the narrative. Rom. vii. 12 &ste 6 pwév voyos 
tiytos Kal 7 évton ayia Kal Sixala Kal aryaby the law, indeed, is holy, 
and the commandment is holy ete. but dwaptia, made active in the 
oap&, misuses it (in the way indicated vs. 8). This thought the 
Apostle brings out in vs. 13 by a different turn of expression. Cf. 
further, Rom. i. 8; iii. 2; 1 Cor. xi. 18 (in all these cases 7parov 
ev, see below), Heb. ix. 1; 2 Cor. xii. 12 (see Riick. in loc.), Acts 


Dao 
Tth ed, 


508 


6th ed, 


098 


576 § 638. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 


ili. 13; xix. 4 (in the last passage pév is not fully established), 
xxvi. 4. Instances in Greek writers are, Eurip. Orest. 8; Xen. 
C.2,1,4; 4,5,50; Mem.1, 2,2; 2,6,3; Plato, ApolZiaams 
Reisig, Soph. Oed. Col. p. 398; Locella, Xen. Ephes. p. 225 and 
many others. In Luke viii. 5 ff.; Jno. xi.6; xix. 32; Jas. iii. 17 
the correlative particle is not entirely omitted, only for dé we find 
sometimes ézrecra (Heind. Plat. Phaed. p.133; Schaef. melet. p. 61), 
sometimes cxac; and that even in Greek authors pev... éwewta, — 
pev... Kal (Thue. 5, 60 and 71), wev ... te are used correlatively, 
is well known, and not strange, cf. Ast, Plat. legge. p. 230; Matthiae, 
Kurip. Orest. 24; Baiter, ind. ad Isocr. paneg. p. 183; Weber, 
Demosth. 257; Maetzner, Antiph. pp. 209, 257. Sometimes the 
clause with dé is somewhat remote, as in 2 Cor. ix. 1, 3 (Thue. 2, 
536 74), probably also in 1 Cor. xi. 18 (see just below) ; or as respects 
ih el. expression is not completely parallel, as in Gal. iv. 24, 26. 


Rom. i. 8 mparov pey edyapiocrd etc. is unquestionably an anacoluthon. 
The Apostle when he used this phrase had in mind a devrepor or ¢ira, 
which, however, in consequence of a change in the thought does not follow. 
The remark of Wyttenbach (Plut. Mor. I. 47, ed. Lips.) is applicable here : 
si solum posuisset zp@rov, poterat accipi pro maxime, ante omnia (so it is 
rendered by nearly all expositors) ; nunc quum pév addidit, videtur voluisse 
alia subjungere, tum sui oblitus esse. Cf. also Isocr. Areopag. p. 344; 
Xen. M. 1,1, 2; Schaef. Demosth. IV. 142; Maetzner, Antiph. p. 191. 
In 1 Cor. xi. 18 rp&rov pev yap cvvepxopévwv tpdv ete., ereta. dé is © 
probably implied in ys. 20 ff.; and Paul properly meant to write: In the 
first place, | hear that when ye come together there are divisions among 
you, and further, that irregularities occur at the Lord’s Supper. Paul 
conceives the latter from a different point of view than the divisions. 
Rom. iii. 2 Tholuck has already correctly explained. 

Likewise in Matt. viii. 21 ézizpefov por tpdrov aredOety kat Paar ete. 
509 there is nothing corresponding to mpérov; yet we, too, say: let me first 
bth ed. (¢r the first place) go and bury, — whereupon every one readily supplies 

according to the context: I will then return (and follow thee, vss. 19, 22). 
When in the combination ve... ka’ a mpdrov is inserted after re, as in 
Rom. i. 16; ii. 9f, it means primarily, chiefly. In 2 Cor. viii. 5, too, 
599 mparov... kai does not stand for mp@rov ... ereita; see Mey. 

An anacoluthon similar to that with pév occurs sometimes with xat where 
it ought to have been repeated (as well... asalso). ‘Thusin 1 Cor. vii. 38 
ste kal 6 exyapilov Kad@s Trove, 6 Oé py exyapilwv Kpetooov move the sen- 
tence is strictly speaking so laid out that xat 6 py... KaAds moved ought to 
follow. But Paul, while intending to express himself thus, corrects him- 
self and employs the comparative, and then the adversative particle appears 
more appropriate. ‘There is, however, weighty evidence against d€; and 


§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 5TT 


it may have been introduced by transcribers for the reason just mentioned, 
instead of the original kat. 


II. 1. Different from anacoluthon is the oratio variata (Jacob, 

Lucian. Alex. p. 22; Jacobs, Aelian. p.6; Bremi, Aeschin. IL. 7 ; 
Mtth. 1530 ff.). It takes place when, in parallel sentences and 
members of sentences, two (synonymous) constructions have been 
adopted, each of which is complete in itself — heterogeneous structure. 
It occurs in accurate writers particularly when the continuance 
of the previous construction would have been heavy, obscure, or 
not quite suited to the thought (Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. 254 ; 
Beier, Cic. off. Il. 38); sometimes, also, regard for variety of 
eypression has had influence. 

We subjoin, in the first place, some instances of a simple 
description: 1 Jno. ii. 2 (AXacpos rept TOV dpapTidv juav, ov Tepl 
TaV nueTepwv 5é ovov, AANA Kal TEpl GNOV TOD KOT MOV (where, 
either instead of the last words the writer might have used zrepi 
TOV OrXov Tov KOcpou, or instead of the first, wept nue), similar 537 
are Heb. ix. 7; Acts xx. 34 (1 Kings iii. 1; iv. 30; Lucian. parasit. Th ed. 
20); Eph. v. 33 cal dpeis ot xa &va Exactos tiv éavTod yvuvaixa 
OUTwS ayaTraTw ws EauTOY, H SE yun iva PoBnTat Tov avdpa (cf. § 43, 

5, and Jno. xiii. 29); Eph. v. 27 wa rapactycn éavt@d évdo£ov thy 
EKKANT lav, wn Exovoav oTthov ... adAN iva FH (7H exKAncia) ayia kK. 

~ dpopos,! cf. Acta apocr. p. 179; Phil. ii. 22 é71, ds ratpl réxvon, 

avy éwol édovreucer eis TO Eevayyédov that, as a child a father, he 

served (me in my apostolic calling, more appositely) with me ete., 

Rom. iv. 12 (Ael. an. 2, 42) ; Luke ix. 1; i. 73 f.2; Rom. i. 12; 

ef. Mtth. 1529 f; Schwarz, soloec. p. 89 sq. ; 1 Cor. xiv. 1 &rodre 

Ta TvEevpaTiKd, padrdov S€ iva mpopntednte (Where Paul might 

have written to mpodntevew), cf. vs. 5 and vs. 11; Rev. iii. 18 ; 600 

Acts xxii. 17. 

The following are bolder: Mark xii. 38 f. rév GeXovtwv ev ctoXais 
TepiTate Kai domacpovs (dordtecOar) ev tais ayopais etc. ; 510 
Jno. viii. 53 wy od pelSov ei tod ratpds nuav “ABpadp, dstis cok: 
améBave ; Kal oi mpophras aréOavov, where the regular construction 
required the continuation of the interrogative form: xat To@v 
Tpopnt@v, oitwes améO.; 1 Cor. vii. 13 yur, Aris Eyer avdpa 


1 Jno. xi. 52 (HuehrAev arodvhexew) ody Srtp rod ZOvovs udvov, GAN’ iva Kal Ta TEKVA... 
auvaydyn eis é€v does not come under this head. There was here no more convenient 
mode of expression for the second clause. 

2 On the other hand, in Luke i. 55 the words r@ "ABpadu etc. belong to uynobijva 
€Agous, especially on account of eis tov aidva. 


73 


588 
7th ed, 


601 


578 § 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 


amtatov Kal odTos cuvevdokel (Kal cuvevdoKodYTA) oiKEly MET AUTHS, 
Ln adiétw avtov, see above, p. 150; cf. similar instances in Luke 
xvii. 31 and Jno. xv. 5. In Rom. xii. 6 sq. Gyovtes 6€ yaplopata 
KATA TiV Yap ... ElTE TpOpyTEelay KATA THY dvadoylav THS TloTEwS, 
elite Ovaxoviay év TH Ovaxovia, elite 0 OLdadcoKwY ey TH dioacKania, 
ElTE 0 TapaKadov év TH TapakAyjoe. the construction (Acc. governed 
by €xovtes) is kept up only as far as év 7H dvax., then commences 
a new construction with concretes, for which Paul might have 
written elite ddacKaXlav ... Tapakdnow ete. In 2 Cor. xi-Zaqm 
Paul enumerates the sufferings attendant on the apostolic calling, 
by which he had proved himself to be the servant of Christ, and 
that in no ordinary degree. First, év xdmois trepiccor. ete. is 
simply appended, each particular is enhanced by an adverb “of 
degree, then follow narrative Aorists and Perfects vs. 24 f.; Paul 
then returns to substantives with the instrumental Dative and the 
instrumental év by turns, vss. 26,27. See, further, Jno. v. 44 ; 
Phila at. 2) 1 nos ote 

The alteration in the construction is manifestly intentional; 
namely, for the purpose of bringing out the thought more forcibly 
than would have been done by a uniform structure, in 2 Jno. 2 
dia THY adjOevav THY pévovocay év Hutv, KaL pe? aua@V EaTat Els TOV 
aiava.t Also in Rom. ii. 9sq. the first time (in reference to 
misery) éxl wacav Wvyyv is used, the second time (in reference 
to salvation) the more appropriate personal Dative. The oratio 
variata occurs in connection with an ellipsis, in 2 Cor. vill. 23 ; 
Rom. ii. 8; xi. 22 and Mark vi. 8 wapyyyeiXev adtois, tva pmdev 
aipwow eis 65dv... GAN DTodedEepevous cavdadia (SC. Topev- 
ecOar) Kat ph évdtcac Oar (here évdvonaOe is the better reading) 
Sto yutavas, see Fr. in loc. In Rom. xii. 2 we should probably 
read the Inf. cveynpat(tec Oar, and not the Imperat. ovoynpat feo be. 


1 Mark ii. 28 can hardly, with F’r., be brought under the head of variatio structurae, 
if measured by the standard of cultivated prose: @yéveTo mapatopevecOa avTdy... did 
Tov omopluwy, Kal Hptavro of padnrai etc. for &pgacat tovs paéytas. The latter 
construction would be too heavy for the narrative style of the Evangelists. Besides, 
éyévero stands in no necessary relation to aptac@a rods pad. (as if, it came to pass that, 
as he ..., the disciples plucked ears) ; but Mark meant: It came to pass, that he went 
through the grain fields on the Sabbath-day, and ( then) the disciples plucked ete. Still 
less can I perceive in 1 Cor. iv. 14; Eph. ii. 11-13 or even in Phil. i. 13 any remarkable 
alteration of the construction. No writer expresses himself with such painful nicety 
as never to say, I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you, 


instead of, not to shame you... but... to warn. But in Acts xxi. 28 (Fr. conject. I. 


42 sq.) rt re shows that Luke wished to give prominence to what follows, and hence 
the independent construction of this new clause. 


§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 579 


From Greek authors many similar instances might be adduced. 
Thus Paus. 1, 19, 5 rod Nicov déyetar Ovyarépa épacOjvar Mivw 

Kal @> aTréKeipe TAS TPlyas TOU TraTpos, 5, 1,2; 8, 22, 4 ITeicavdpos 

dé avtov 6 Kapupevs arroxreivas tas dpyiOas od dynaty, adda ws opm 
KpoTtdArwv exdimgevev auvtds. Thuc. 8,78; Xen. M. 2,7, 8; Hell. 
2,38,19; Anab. 2,5, 5; Aelian. anim. 10,18. As to Mark xii. 38f. 

cf. especially Lys. caed. Eratosth. 21. From the Sept. may be 
quoted Gen. xxxi. 33; Judg. xvi. 24; 3 Esdras iv. 48; vill. 22, 80; 511 
Neh. x. 30. In Mark iii. 14 ff., with the principal words éoiye ‘th 4 
dedexa, iva etc. vss. 14, 15, which are complete in themselves, is 
connected first the detached statement vs. 16 cal é7éOnxev dvopa 

T® Ziuwwve etc. in reference to the chief apostle, then follow in 
vss. 17-19 the names of the rest in direct dependence on ézro/noev, 
and only in vs. 17 is subjoined a similar statement, which no more 
breaks the flow of the discourse than in vs. 19 0s Kai mrapédmxev 
etc. does. The whole structure would be regular had Mark said 

in vs. 16 Xivwva, © é7éOnxev dvoya etc. 


Under this head comes also the transition from a relative construction 
to a personal, as in 1 Cor. viii. 6 eis Oeds ... €€ ob Ta Tavra Kal Hels eis 
avrov, 2 Pet. ii. 3 ots 76 Kpiva exradar ok apyet Kal ) aTwAca adTov 
ov vuoTacet, Rev. ii. 18, see above, p- 149; Weber, Demosth. p. 355 sq. 
Essentially similar is Luke x. 8 «is nv dv wodw cisépxnobe, Kal déywvtar (ot 
qmoNtrat) dpas ete. , 

On Rev. vii. 9 efdov kai dod GyAOs... €oTOres...TeptBeBAnpEvors, 
ef. xiv. 14, see above, § 59, 11 p. 535. Both passages contain a blending 
of two constructions, as in Rey. xviii. 12 f, where are appended to tov 
yonov first appositive Genitives, then an Acc. (raév évAov), afterwards 
(x. irwv etc.) Genitives again, lastly (Wuxas avOp.) another Acc. On the 539 
other hand, in ii. 17, in accordance with the proper distinction of cases, Th ed. 
first a Gen. and then an Acc. are made to depend on décw. 


2. Moreover, the transition (very frequent in Greek prose 
authors) from the oratio obliqua to the recta, and vice versa, 
deserves special attention (d’Orville, Charit. p. 89 and 347 ; Heind. 
Protag. p. 510 sq.; Jacobs, Aelian. p. 46,475; Ast, Plat. lege. 
p. 160 ; Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 451; Bornem. Xen. Mem. p. 253 ; 
Fr. Mare. p. 212): Acts xxiii. 22 aéduce Tov veaviay Tapayyetras 
pnoevi é€xXNadHoaL, Ste TadTa evehavicas Tpos pe, VSS. 23, 24 eizrev* 
éTOLLadgaTe ... KTHVN Te Tapacthaat, Luke v. 14 rapryyerev av7@ 602 
pndevi eimety, adrAa amedAOwv Sei€ov, Mark vi. 9; cf. Xen. Hell. 2, 
1, 25; An. 1, 8, 14 and the passages from Joseph. in Kypke I. 
229 sq.; Mark xi. 81sq. éay eciwpev: €& ovpavod, épets dvati ovdv 


580 § 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


OUK ETTLaTEVoATE AUT@ ; GAN eltwpev: €& avOpoTrav ; EhpoRodYTO 
Tov Xaov (where the narrator proceeds in his own words). With 
Acts i. 4 cf. Lysias in Diogit. 12 ézrevd7 6€ suv Oopev, Hpeto abrov 
n yur, Tia ToTEe Wuyny éywv ak.ot Tepl TOV Taldwy ToLAUTN YyvoOuN 
xpijcGat, adedpos ev WY TOV TaTpos, TaTHp & éwos ete. (Geopon. 
1,12,6). See also Jno. xiii. 29; Acts xvii. 8; on the other hand, 
in Matt. ix. 6 the narrator intercalates tote Néyer TO TapaduTiKe 
among the words of Christ, cf. Mark ii. 10; Luke v. 24. This 
explanation is the simplest. Meyer is artificial.! 


512 ‘A transition from the Sing. to the Plur., and vice versa, occurs in Rom. 
bthet. iii, 7 f.; xii. 16 ff. 20; 1 Cor. iv. (2) 6f. (Aelian. 5, 8); 2 Cor. xi. 6; 
Jas. ii. 16; Gal. iv. 6 f. (vi. 1); Schweigh. Arrian. Epict. II. I. 94,278; 
Matthiae, Eurip. Orest. 111 ; Schaef. Demosth. IV. 106; Schwarz, soloec. 
107. Likewise Rom. ii. 15 év tr. kapdlats aitav, cvppaptupovoyns avtav 
THs cvvetonaews may be referred to this head. The transition from 
the Sing. to the Plur. in Luke v. 4 is intentional, see Bornem. in loc. As 
to the Plur. in apposition with a Sing. in 1 Jno. v. 16 see § 59, 8 p. 530. 
A heterogeneous appositive construction occurs in Rey. i. 6 érotnoe 
nas Baotrelav tepets To Geo, see § 59, 8. So also in other construc- 
tions the Greek authors sometimes place concretes and abstracts in 
juxtaposition, see Bremi, Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 25; Weber, Demosth. 260. 

Cf. also Caes. civ. 3, 32 erat plena lictorum et imperiorum provincia. 


540 °§64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES; ELLIPSIS,? 
7th ed. APOSIOPESIS. 
603 
I. The erroneous and variable notions about Ellipsis (and 
Pleonasm) current until very recently, and derived from the 
uncritical compilations of L. Bos® and his followers (cf. Haab 


p. 276 ff.), and of N. T. philologists in particular, were first cor- 


1 Matt. xvi. 11 més od votre, Stt ob wep Uptwy eimoy buty* mposéxeTe SE amd THs Couns 
Ttav Sapicaiwy etc. is of a different sort, as here only the direct words of Jesus, used in 
vs. 6, are as such repeated. Likewise Jno. x. 36 contains nothing remarkable. 

2See K. Ff. Krumbholz, de ellips. in N. T. usu freq. in his operar. subseciy. lib. 1. 
Norimb. 1736. 8vo. no. 11; F’. A. Wolf, de agnitione ellipseos in interpretatione libror. 
sacror. Comment. IL-XI. Lips. 1800-1808. 4to. (Comm. I-VI. have been reprinted in 
Pott, Sylloge commentt. theol. IV. 107 sqq.; WII. 52sqq.; VIII. 1 sqq.), an uncritical 
collection. Cf. besides, Bauer, Philol. Thucyd. Paull. 162 sqq.; Bloch, on the Ellipses 
in Paul’s Epistles, in his Theologian Part I. (Odensee 1791). 

3 Lamb. Bos, Ellipses graecae. Franecq. 1712. 8vo.; Traj. ad Rh. 1755. 8vo. ; ed. 
C. Schoettgen, 1718, 1728. 12mo.; ed. J. F. Leisner, Lips. 1749, 1767. 8vo.; ed. 
N. Schwebel, Norimb. 1763; c. nott. C. B. Michaelis, Hal. 1765. 8vo.; c. prior. editor. 
suisq. observatt. ed. G. H. Schaefer, Lips. 1808. 8vo. (reprinted at Oxford 1813. 8vo.), 
cf. Fischer, Weller. III. I. 119 sqq.; III. IT. 29 sqq. 


§ 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 581 


rected, and sound views established, by Herm. de ellipsi et pleo- 
nasmo in Wolf and Buttmann’s Mus. antiq. studior. Vol. I. fase. I. 
pp. 97-235, and in Herm. Opusce. I. 148-244, and especially in his 
notes on Vig. 869 sqq.! We shall mainly follow him in this dis- 513 
cussion, which, however, is primarily intended merely to lay down SMe 
the various classes of ellipses, since Glassius and Haab have 
already accumulated examples in great abundance.” 

1. Ellipsis (not including Aposiopesis, to be treated under No. 
II) consists in the omission of a word the meaning of which must 
be supplied in thought (in order to complete the sentence).? The 
omission of such a word (whether out of convenience or an effort 
to be concise) * is allowable only when, in what is uttered, an 604 
indubitable intimation of the omitted word is given (Hm. opuse. 
p. 218), either by means of the particular structure of the sentence 541 
or by virtue of a conventional usage.® In accordance with the ™« 
three constituent parts of every simple sentence, such omissions 
may be arranged under the three main classes of Ellipses of the 
Subject, of the Predicate, and of the Copula (Hm. Vig. 870 sq.). 
A real i.e. entire ellipsis of the predicate, however, does not, and 
probably cannot, occur (Hm. Vig. 872), since the possible predi- 
cates are too various for the speaker to leave this part of his 
sentence to be supplied by the reader. Accordingly there remain 
but the other two sorts of ellipses, and those of the subject are 
naturally the more limited. 


The case in which a word or phrase of a preceding clause must be 
repeated in a subsequent connected clause, either unchanged or altered to 
suit the construction (Glass. I. 632 sqq.), cannot be called an ellipsis, there 
being here no actual omission of the word (Hm. Vig. 869; Opuse. 151 
sq.; Poppo, Thue. I. I. 282).° Examples: 


1 Ellipsis in Latin is discussed by J. W. Schlickeisen, de formis linguae latinae 
ellipticis. Miihlhausen, 1830 and 43. two Pr. 4to. An earlier work of J. G. Lindner on 
Latin Ellipses (Frkft. a. M. 1780. 8vo.) is of little value even as a collection of examples. 

2 How much the books of,Scripture have been compelled to suffer from expositors 
in the matter of Ellipsis 7m. Opuse. p. 217 intimates, when he terms these books, 
cereos flecti quorundam artibus. 

3 Hm. opuse. p. 153: ellipseos propria est ratio grammatica, quae posita est in co, 
ut oratio, etiamsi aliquid omissum sit, integra esse censeatur, quia id, quod omissum 
est, necessario tamen intelligi debeat, ut quo non intellecto sententia nulla futura sit. 

4 The omission of a word may also sometimes arise entirely or partly from a rhetor- 
ical cause. See below, no. 3. 

5 Neither of these can, for instance, be shown by those expositors who, to get over 
the historical difficulty in Jno. xviii. 31, would supply hoc die (festo) in connection with 
huiv ove ekeoTiv AmoKTetvat ovdéva. 


6 It must not be overlooked that this mode of expression gives style greater periodic 


514 
6th ed, 


605 


542 
7th ed. 


582 § 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


a. 2 Cor. i. 6 etre OAL Bopeba, trép Ts tudv cwrnpias sc. OAiBopeba (v. 13 ; 
vii. 12) ; Luke xxii. 36 6 &wv Baddévriov, dpdrw ... 6 pip Gov sc. Badddyreov 
(x. mypav), Jas. il. 10; Jno. iv. 26; xii. 28 ddfacov cod 7d dvopa... Kat 
eddgaca Kai wad dofaow sc. TO dvopa pov. Cf. also Rom. iii. 27 ; viii. 4; 
xi. 6; xili. 1 (at d€ obaat sc. e€ovelor, which but few authorities add),! Jno. 
iv. 53; Acts xxili.34; 1 Cor. vii. 3 f.; xi. 25 (cf. vs. 23); xv. 273 2°Cor. 
xi. 11; Rev.ii.9. So especially in answers: Jno. xviii. 5 riva fyretre;... 
‘Incotv tov Nalwpatov, vs. 7; Luke xx. 24 rivos éyeu cixova Kal érvypadny ; 
amokpWeévres eiov* Katcapos, vii. 43 ; Matt. xxvii. 21; Heb. v. 4 ovdx €avT@ 
tis Aap Paver TV Tiny, GAAG Kadovpevos bd T. Geod sc. AopBaver Tr. TyL. (but 
Aap. in the sense of receive). 

b. Mark xiv. 29 ei ravtes oxavdadiaOjoovrat, dAN ovK eyo (cKxavdadicOy- 
copa, cf. Matt. xxvi. 33); Eph. v. 24 dszep 1) éxxAnota trordccerat TO 
Xpw7@, ovTW... al yuvatkes Tots avdpacw (trotaccésOwoar) ; 2 ‘Tim. i. 5 
NTls evOKNoE ev TH poppy cov... wérevopar O€, OTL Kal ev cot (évoixet) ; Rom. 
xi. 16 ei 4) dzrapyy ayia, Kat 70 pvpapa (dyov) ; Heb. v. 5 6 Xp. ody éavrov 
eddgacev ... GAN’ 6 AaAnoas mpds airov (€dd€. adrov) ; 1 Cor. xi. 1 pupyrat 
pov yiverbe, Kabas Kayo Xpiotod (pipytys eit) ; Xiv. 27 elite yAwoon tis 
Aadel, kata dvo 7H TO TAEtaTOV rpets (Aadcitwoav), cf. 1 Pet. iv. 11; Luke 
xxill. 41 év 76 aired Kpipare > Kal nets pev Oucaiws (é€opev sc. ev TO Kpipare 
rovrw) ; 1 Cor. ix. 12, 25; xi. 16; 2 Cor. ili. 13 Kal od KaOdrep Mwiojs 
ériGeu kddAvppa emt To mpdswrov éavTod (Tienev Kad. xi TO Tp. Hov),? ef. 
besides Matt. xx.23; xxvi. 5; Jno. xil.9; xv. 4,93; xvil. 223 xvii 40; 
Rom. i. 21; ix. 32; xiv. 23; Phil. i. 5; i1.4; Heb. (isto yee 
x. 25; xii. 25; Rev. xix. 10; Matt. xxv. 9. Under this head comes also 
1 Cor. vii. 21 dodAos exAnOys, py cor pedéro, if, as is most natural, ris 
dovAeias be supplied (Lob. paralip. p. 8314); see Meyer, who has overlooked 
the fact that even in my fifth edition I made this suggestion. The greatest 
accumulation of such indispensable repetitions occurs in Rom. xii. 6 ff. 

c. Neither is there any real ellipsis when an affirmative word is to be 





supplied from a foregoing negative, — a case of frequent occurrence in 


Greek authors (e.g. Thuc. 2, 98, 3 zopevowévw aira@ areyiyvero ev ovdev 


compactness; whereas the repetition of the same or a similar expression would in 
most cases be very heavy. 

1] Jno. iii. 20 also would, according to Liicke’s exposition, come under this head, as 
yiweokouerv (oiSauev) is supplied before the second 611, vs.19. I confess, however, that 
to me this explanation scems very forced. Why might not a transcriber have added, 
from inadvertence, a second 671? Lehm. has with A rejected the second 87. But it 
may just as well have been omitted because it was not understood. Or why may not 
the author himself have repeated the 671, as in Eph. ii. 11 f.? see F’r. Progr. ad Gal. 
p. 5 (Fritzschiorum opuse. p. 236). The passage has never yet been satisfactorily 
explained. 

2 This case, in which the verb is construed, not with the principal subject, but with 
the subject of the secondary clause, may be regarded as a sort of attraction, see Kriizer, 
gramm. Untersuch. II. 72, who at the same time adduces many similar examples, as 
xen. 0.435153 sol hic. 1582); te 07. 


2 


§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 583 


Tov orparod et py TL vow, Tposeylyvero Sé, see Stallb. Plat. apol. p. 78 ; 
sympos. p. 80, and Euthyd. p.158; Maetzner, Antiph. p. 176, on the Lat. 
cf. Bremi, Nep. p. 345; Kritz, Sallust. II. 573); as, 1 Cor. vii. 19 7 
Tepitopy ovdev earl, GAAA THpHOLS evTOAGY Geod (eorTi TLOY TA TavTa éoTL), 
iii. 7; 1 Cor. x. 24 pydels 7d éavrod Lyreirw, GANA 7d Tod Erépov sc. ExacTos. 
Otherwise in Eph. iv. 29; 1 Cor.iii.1. Frugality of expression is carried 
still farther in Mark xii. 5 xat wodAovs GAAovs, rods pev S€povtes, Tors de 
dmoxteivovres, Where from these two Participles a finite verb is to be 
borrowed that combines both verbal notions, — such as Maltreat (cf. Fr. 
in loc.). Also in Rom. xiv. 21 xadov 75 py hayeiv Kpéa pndé meet otvor, 
pnde év © 6 ddeAdos cov zposkorre etc., after the second pydé, the general 
word zoey (Aristot. Nicom. 8, 13, 6), or such an expression as make use 
of, is probably to be supplied. As to Phil. ii. 3 see below, p. 587 (Lob. 
paralip. p. 382). In Heb. x. 6, 8 6Xoxavtdpara Kai rept dyaptias ov 
evddxyoas the general notion Ovaias is to be educed from éXox. for wept ap., 
as in Heb. x. 38 the genera] term dv@pw7os is to be gathered from déikcazos 
(cf. Kiihner II. 37). In Rev. vi. 4 we must abstract from Aaf. r. eip. é« 
™ms yns the concrete of Katouxodvtes ex aitns as a subject for ofdgovor. 


Yet here, too, the omission is but partial. (For examples of all the 515 
preceding cases from Latin, see Lindner, lat. Ellips. S. 240 ff) At the 6th ed, 


same time, in all these cases the incompleteness of the sentence (viewed 
grammatically and logically) renders it obviously necessary to supply 
something. This is not the case in Jno. viii. 15 tyets xara tHV odpKa 
Kpivete, €y ov Kkpivw ovdeva, where on the contrary the second clause is so 
concluded by ovdéva that nothing whatever requires to be supplied: ye 
judge according to the flesh, but I judge no one (not merely, no one 


according to the flesh, but absolutely no one). To supply xara tiv odpKa 5 


from the foregoing clause could only be justified by incongruity in the 
sense without such addition. This, however, I am as unable to discover 
as Olshausen and Liicke. On the meaning, see especially BCrus. in loc. 

After ei d€ py or ef dé py ye (Matt. vi. 1; Luke x. 6; xiii. 9; 2 Cor. 
xi. 16 etc.; cf. Plat. Gorg. 503¢c.; Phaed. 63c.; Hoogeveen, partic. 
gr. I, 345 sq.), and after the expression (current with Paul) od povov 
é (... dAAG kai), it is peculiarly common to supply a preceding word 
or phrase; as, Rom. v. 3 ot povov O€ (sc. Kavydpeba ex’ eAvride THs d0és 
vs. 2), dAAa Kai Kavyopeba etc. y. 11 Karaddayevres cwOnodpcOa ... od 
povov O€ (katahdayevres cwOno.), GAMA Kal Kavxywopevot, Vili. 23; 2 Cor. 
vill. 19. In Rom. ix. 10 od povov dé, ddd Kat ‘PeBéxxa etc. something to 
be gathered from a more distant part of the context appears to be wanting. 
It is easiest to supply it from vs. 9; cf. vs. 12: and (not only) Sarah 
received a divine promise respecting her son, but also Rebecca, who was 
yet the mother of two legitimate sons, ete. In Greek cf. Diog. L. 9, 39 
mevTakoolos TaAdvToLs TynOjva, pi) poovov oé, adda Kal xadkats €ikdou. 
Lucian. vit. auct. 7 ob pdvov, GAG Kal jv Ovpwpeiv aitov éemaTnoys, TAL 


606 


584 - §64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


moToTéepw xpnon Tov Kvvav, Toxar. 1 (Kypke, obs. II. 165; Hoogeveen, 
partic. II. 956). Analogous is the expression od povov ye... ddAd used 
by earlier authors, e.g. Plat. Phaed. 107 b. od povov y, én 6 Swxparys (sc. 


dmiotiav o¢ det exe rept TOV cipnévwv), GAAA Taira Te ed Eyes etc., Meno — 


71 b.; legg. 6, 752 ete., see Heind. and Stallb. Plat. Phaed. as above. 
The clause after od povoy dé is (by repetition) expressed in 2 Cor. vii. 7. 
Also the use of xav, in the sense of vel certe (Vig. 527; Boisson. Philostr. 
epp- p. 97), is referable to an omission, e.g. Mark vi. 56 tva Kady tod 
kpaorédov ...@ipwvrar (properly va adWuvrar abrot, Kav rod Kpac7€dov 
dywvrat), 2 Cor. xi. 16, as also «i xaé in 2 Cor. vii. 8 ef. Bengel in loc. 

Still less is it to be considered as an ellipsis when, in one and the same 
principal clause, a word used only once is to be supplied twice (in different 
phrases) : Acts xvii. 2 xara 76 ciwds 76 TLavdw eisqAGe mpds adrovs (IlatAos), 
Xill. 3 éxévres Tas yeipas avrois dméAvoay (airovs). In Rom. ii. 28 ody 6 
év TO havep® ‘lovdaids éorw ovd€ 7) év- 7G Havepo zepitopy the predicative 
Iovdatos and zepirouy must be supplied also to the subject 6 év 7O day. 
Cf. further Acts viii. 7. 

607 Note. It may sometimes happen that a word is to be supplied in the 
preceding from the subsequent context (Hm. opuse. 151; Jacob, Lucian. 
Alex. p. 109; Lindner, lat. ea S. 251 ff.), ef. 1 Cor. vii. 39. But in 

516 Rom. v. 16 to supply zaparrwparos after e& évos from éx tv ToAAGY Tapa- 

bthed. rrwudrwv may now be regarded as out of date, see Philippi in loc. And 
in 2 Cor. viii. 5 éwxay serves, as usual, also for the clause beginning with 
kat ov, only with the latter it must be taken absolutely: and they did not 
give as (in extent) we hoped, but their own selves gave they etc. Only in 
Mark xy. 8 npgaro airetaOar xabws del érofe. avrots it may seem as if it 
were necessary to supply zovety after airetoGar, from éroter; but the words 

544 properly run: to entreat according as he always did for them, from which 

ith el. the object of request may be gathered, but not grammatically supplied. 
As to Eph. iv. 26, however, where some would supply pa from the second 
member also in the first, see p. 311. 


2. The most frequent real omission is that of the simple copula 
eivat: 

a. In the form éorié, more rarely in the form 7 (yet cf. Stallb. 
Plat. rep. I. 133), because it is obviously suggested by the juxta- 
position of subject and predicate (Rost 473 f.; Kru. 240 f.; ef. 
Wannowski, syntax. anom. p. 210 sq.) Heb. v. 13 was 6 peréyov 
yaXaxTos aretpos (€oTl) Adyou Suxavocvrns, ix. 16; x. 4,18; xi. 19; 
Mark -xiv,°36; Rom. xi. 16; xiv..21; 2 Cor. i. 21; Philipeeaee 
Hph.i. 18; iv.4; v.17; 2 Thess. iii. 2; 1 Pet. iv. 17, particularly 
in questions Luke iv. 86; Acts x. 21; Rom. iii. 1; viii. 27; 31; 
2 Cor. iil. 16; vi. 14; Rev. xui.4; Heb. vi. 8 (ef. Kritz, Sallust. 
I. 251) and exclamations Acts xix. 28, 34 peyddyn % "Aprems 


§ 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 585 


"Edeciov, but especially in certain set forms of expression Jas. 
i. 12 waxapsos avyp, ds etc. (Matt. v. 3,5-10; xiii. 16; Luke i. 45; 
Rom. iv. 8; xiv. 22; Rev. xvi. 15; cf. 1 Pet. iv. 14), d7Aov ote 
1 Cor. xv. 27; 1 Tim. vi. 7, dvayen with Infin. Heb. ix. 16, 23 ; 
Rom. xiii. 5, micros 6 Oeds 1 Cor. i. 9; x. 13; 2 Cor. i. 18 or 
murtos 0 Aoyos 1 Tim. i. 15; iii. 1; 2 Tim. ii. 11, 6 Kvpsos eyyis 
Phil. iv. 5, a&vos o épyarns t. tpopjs Matt. x. 10; 1 Tim. v. 18 
ef. Rey. v. 2, ére wuxpov Jno. xiv. 19, wsxpov dcov dcov Heb. x. 387, 
et Ouvvatov Matt. xxiv. 24; Rom. xii. 18; Gal. iv. 15, dpa with 
Infin. Rom. xiii. 11 (Plat. ap. p. 42), 7/ yap Phil. i. 18; Rom. iii. 3, 
ri ovv Rom. iii. 9; vi. 15, ré wot x. cof Mark v. 7; i. 24; Luke 
vill. 28; Jno. ii. 4 (Her. 5, 33 ; Demosth. aphob. 564 b.; Arrian. 
Hpict. 1, 1,16; 2,19, 16), ti 76 heros 1 Cor. xv. 32; Jas. ii. 14, 
16, 6 dvoua or dvoua avt@, where the name follows, Luke ii. 25 ; 
_ Jno. i. 6; ii. 1, etc. (Demosth. Zenoth. p. 576 b.), cf. besides Acts 
xiii. 11; ii. 29. In the latter, as in the former, brevity and com- 
pactness are in place, cf. Vig. p. 236.1 The Subjunctive 7 is to 608 
be supplied after va in (Rom. iv. 16) 2 Cor. viii. 11, 13. 

b. More rarely is the substantive verb omitted in other forms: 
as eiui 2 Cor. xi. 6 ef 5€ Kal idudTys TA AOYO GAN ov TH yvoret 
(roylfouar pndev torepnxévar Tov bwepav amocTOAwy precedes),? 
etait Rom. iy. 14; xi. 16; 1 Cor. xiii. 8; i. 26 (see Mey.); Rev. 
- xxii. 15; Heb. ii. 11 (Schaef. melet. p. 43sq.), éouév Rom. viii. 17; 517 
2 Cor. x. 7; Phil. iii. 15 (Plin. epp. 6, 16), e Rev. xv. 4 (Plat, sth ed. 
Gorg. 487 d.), éotw Rom. xii. 9; Col. iv. 6; Heb. xiii. 4, 5 (Fr. 
Rom. III. 65) also after ydpis r@ Ged Rom. vi. 17 ; 2 Cor. viii. 16; 
ix. 15 (Xen. A. 3, 3, 14), e’m in wishes Rom. i. 7; xv. 33; Jno. 
ax. 19, 21, 26; Matt. xxi. 9; Lukei. 28; Tit. iii. 15. Two dif- 
ferent forms of this verb are omitted at the same time in Jno. 
xiv. 11 671 éym évy T@ Tatpi Kai o TaTnp év éwol, xvii. 23. In 545 
narration the Aorist also is suppressed, e.g. 1 Cor. xvi. 9 (Xen, Med. 
An. 1, 2,18; Cyr. 1, 6,6; Thuc. 1, 188, etc.). On the Future 
see p. 586. In all cases in the simple diction of the N. T. it is 
easy Gin Greck authors it is frequently more difficult, see Schaef. 
melet. p. 43 sq. 114) to perceive from the connection what words 
are to be supplied. Hitherto, however, expositors have been very 
lavish of their ellipses of the substantive verb, and have in par- 


1 Under this head comes also the phrase ti (éort) 57: Mark ii. 16; Acts v. 4 (Bar. 
iii. 10) ; Fr. Mr. p. 60. 
2 More simply in Mark xii. 26 Sept. éya 6 Oeds "ABpadu Acts vii. 32. Also 2 Cor. 
viii. 23. Cf. Soph. Antig. 634. 
74 


586 -- § 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


ticular transformed in this way a multitude of Participles into 
finite verbs, cf. § 45, 6 p. 350. 


Likewise the Imperative plural éoré’ is, according to the whole tone 
of the sentence, omitted in passages such as Rom. xii. 9 (1 Pet. iii. 8) ; 
and to explain the Participle droarvyotvres by an anacoluthon is unneces- 
sary. With etAoyntos 6 eds etc. Rom. ix. 5; 2 Cor. i. 3; Eph.i. 3 
we must supply, not éori (Fr. Rom. I. 75), but (cf. 1 Kings x. 9; Jobi. 21) 
ein OY eoTw. 

Likewise, where éori etc. is more than a mere copula, where it denotes 
existence, permanence, it is sometimes wanting (Rost 474) 1 Cor. xv. 21 
dc dvOpamrov 6 Oavaros (exists) vs. 40; Rom. iv. 13. 


It is thus sufficient to supply etvae or yiveo@at even in most of 
those passages where an oblique case or a preposition seems to 
require a more definite verb; as, 1 Cor. vi. 13 ta Bpwpata TH 
Kotla Kal 7 KoiXla Tois Bpwopact, Acts x. 15 dwvr madw é« dSevtépou 

609 mrpos avtov (éyéveto, cf. vs. 13), Matt. iii. 17 (Jno. xii. 28 7\@ev 
pov ),? 1 Cor. iv. 20 od« é&v A6yw 1) Bacirela Tov Oeod, GAN ev 

* duvapes (cf. ii. 5), Rom. x. 1; xi. 11; 2 Cor. iv. 15; viii. 13 (Mey.), 

1 Pet. ii. 12; Heb. vii. 20. The preposition or case suggests the 
particular verbal notion to be supplied: (whose final doom) leads 

to burning, vs destined for, results in, etc. As in the last passage 
éyéveto is obviously sufficient, so in the first and second, in accord- 
ance with the simplicity of the style, nothing more than éc7i is to 

be supplied. The same applies to 1 Cor. v. 12 ti ydp poe Kai Tovs 
518 é&w xpivew ; (Arrian. Epict. 2,17, 14 té pou viv tv pds addjdovs 
6th ed. payny Tmapapépe ; 4, 6; 33) and Jno. xxi. 22 ti mpods ce; (see 
Hm. opuse. p. 157 sq. 169; Bos, ellips. p. 598; cf. the Latin hoc 
nihil ad me, quid hoc ad me, Kritz, Sallust. 11. 146). Also in 
546 Jno. xxi. 21 obtos 6€ rl; otas (yevnocetar) is sufficient. The 
ith el. Connection points toa Future. Cf. 1 Pet. iv. 17. Lastly, under 


this head comes the expression iva ti sc. yévntae or yévorro, Hm. 
Vig. 849. 


1 Mey. thinks that éové is to be supplied also in Eph. i. 13 after év ¢. But this év 
seems rather to be taken up again after the clause dovcavtes etc. in the second év @. 
For eiva: év Xpior@ can hardly be introduced between acovoavres and motevoartes. 

2 What is suppressed is always that which is the most simple ; and although here 
and there in a phrase elsewhere elliptical a writer inserts a specific verb, it does not 
follow that this very verb is the verb to be supplied. Thus Antipater, in the Greek 
Anthology, says: ef tl tot éx BiBAwy FAGEV eu@y Spedos. Yet we must not on that 
account, with Palairet p. 415, supply 7A@e in the phrase ti wor 7d Spedos, but merely 
the simple éori. In the same way, in Lucian. merc. cond. 25 we find tf koivdy Avdpa 
kat dv ; but it does not follow from this that kowdy must be supplied in the phrase ri 
éuol kad ool ; see Fr. Mr. p. 33. 


§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 587 


Verbs which express the predicate (or a part of it) as well as 
the copula (Hm. p. 156 sq.) can be suppressed only when some 
intimation of them is given in the structure of the sentence (Bar. 
iv. 1). Cf. the familiar phrases Twelve for a dollar, manum de 
tabula, haec hactenus, etc. Thus in Acts ix. 6 rec. 0 Kupios mpods 
avrov it is easy to supply eézre (vs. 15), which is suggested in zpos 
avrov, as in li. 88; xxv. 22 (Aelian. 1, 16 var.).1. In Rom. iv. 9 
0 pakapLap.os OUTOS él THY TEepiTOMyY }) Kal el axpoBvaTiay ; the 
meaning is obviously: does it have reference to etc. ; yet we must 
supply, not aires with Theophylact, but rather Aéyeras (Fr. in 
loc.), cf. vs. 6 (Aéye ets twa Eurip. Iphig. T. 1180). Acts 
xviii. 6 TO aiwa buadv ert thy Keharynv vuav, Matt. xxvii. 25 7d 
aima avtod ép nas (2 Sam. i. 16; Plato, Huthyd. 283 e.) se. 
éXOérw cf. Matt. xxiii. 35 (though éo7 is sufficient).2 In Rom. 
v. 18 as 60’ évds TapaTT@patos eis TavTas avOpwTroUs Els KaTAKPLLA 
supply a7é8n impersonal: res cessit, abit in etc., and in the fol- 
lowing ottw kal dv évds Sixarmpatos eis mavtas avOpwrrovs eis 
dixainow fwis, (according to vs. 19) amoByjcera (Fr.), or rather 
améBn also (Mey.). In 2 Cor. ix. T &kaatos, ka@@s tponpntat TH 
Kapoia, un ex NUTrNS, Supply doTw, suggested by the whole context. 
In Luke xxii. 26 duets 5€ ovy ottws, the word oujcere, inferred 
from xvupievovew etc., is most naturally to be supplied; perhaps 
even éoeo@e might suffice. But in Phil. ii. 3 with pndev cara 
épidevav it is enough to repeat dpovodvtes. In Gal. ii. 9 SeFvas 
éd@xav éwot Kai BapvaBa Kowwvias, va pets wev eis TA Evy, adTor 
d€ els THY TepiTouHy, since the passage relates to preachers of the 
gospel, we may readily supply evayyerfoucba, evayyerifovrar 
(2 Cor. x. 16, like «nputrew eis twa 1 Thess. ii. 9), and not with 
Fr. and Mey. the less significant vopev0apev, topevOdow etc. In 
Rey. vi. 6 the complement of the cry, yotw& ottou Syvapiov Kat 
Tpels yolvixes KpLOdy Snvapiov a measure of wheat for a denarion! 
is as obviously suggested by the Genitive of price (p. 206), as in 
similar forms of expression with us. As to the epistolary forms 
of salutation in Rey. i. 4 "Iwavyns tais érta éxkdrnoiass tals év TH 
’Aoia, Phil. i. 1 IlatXos raow trois aylou ... Tots odcw ev Pirirrois 


1 This ellipsis has a wide range in Greek and Latin, e.g. Charit. 6, 1 radra wey ody 
oi &vdpes, Val. Flacc. 5, 254 vir ea. Cf. also Cic. N. D. 2, 4, 11 augures rem ad 
-“Senatum, and many similar instances especially in the epistolary style, Cic. fam. 4, 8 ; 
7,9; Attic. 15,8 and 17; 16, 9, particularly ad Attic. 

? In Greek authors also, when similar imprecations occur, e.g. és kepadny oo Aristoph. 
pac. 1063, tparéeo@w is usually supplied (see Bos p. 657 sq.), agreeably to Mosch. 4, 
123 ; Phalar. ep. 128. 


610 


519 
6th ed 


588 § 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


5AT sc. yalpew réyes, or Acts xxiii. 26 KX. Avolas TO Kpatiot Hyco 
th ed. Dy rvKe yalpew sc. Neyer, XV. 23; Jas. i. 1,see Fr. Rom. I. 22. 


In the proverb 2 Pet. ii. 22 ds Novoapevy cis KiAcpa BopBdpov, the 
requisite verb is implied in eis, and émurpé~aca may easily be supplied, 
conformably to what precedes. But it is precisely in proverbs, where 
brevity of expression is necessary, that specific verbs are (by conventional 
usage) suppressed, cf. yAatx’ eis “A@nvas, fortuna fortes, and Bhdy. p. 351. 
Grotefend, ausf. lat. Gramm. II. 397 f.; Zumpt, lat. Gramm. p. 610. 


3. The subject is wholly wanting (Krii. 232) only, 

a. When it is self-evident; because the predicate, owing to the 
nature of the case or to conventional usage, can refer to but one 
(definite) subject, e.g. Bpovrd (0 Zevs), carmifer (0 cadmyKTIs), 
avayvecetat (Demosth. Mid. 386 b.) sc. scriba, see above, § 58, 
9 p. 521 sq. From Jewish phraseology may be included under 
this head the formulas of quotation Aéyes Heb. i. T, elpnxe iv. 4, 
gnat viii. 5 (vii. 17 rec. waptupet), see above, § 58, 9 p. 522. As 
to Heb. xiii. 5 see Bleek. 

b. When an expression is introduced the subject of which is 
at once supplied by every reader’s knowledge or memory ; as, Jno. 
vi. 31 aptov ék tod otpavod ewxev avtois paryety sc. 0 Beos, 2 Cor. 
ix. 9 (Ps. cxii. 9); 1 Cor. xv. 27 (but in vs. 25 the subject is 

611 Xpicrds), Col. i. 19; Jno. xii. 40; xv. 25; Rom. ix. 18f.; see 
v. Hengel, Cor. p. 120sq. As to Jno. vii. 51 see p. 5238. On 
1 Tim. iii. 16 see a few lines below; and as to Matt. v. 88 see 
below, no. 6 Remark, p. 598.1 7 


Nothing is omitted when the third person Plur. is used impersonally, 
as in Jno. xx. 2 jpav tov Kvptov ek Tov pyynpetov (cf. § 58, 9 p. 522) ; for the 
general subject, people or men, is properly speaking already contained in 
the person. See also Luke xii. 20 and Bornem. in loc. The same applies 
to the Gen. Absolute, as in Luke viii. 20 drnyyéAn atta AeyovTov Le. 
they saying, cf. 1 Kings xii. 9; 1 Chron. xvii. 24; Thuc. 1, 8; Xen. C. 3, 
3,04; Diog. L. 6, 82; Doederlein, Soph. Oedip. Col. p. 393; Valcken. 
Herod. p. 414; Schaef. Demosth, V. 301. 

In 1 Tim. iii. 16, according to the reading os, the subject to the relative 
clauses that follow would be wanting, unless, with recent editors, we begin 
the apodosis with édu. But that is unadvisable on account of the paral- 
lelism. It is more likely that all these members are co-ordinate, and that 
the apostle took them from some hymn (as such were in use even in the 


-1 Sometimes when the subject is omitted a rhetorical reason has influence, inasmuch 
as it is concealed out of disappointment and vexation. To this might perhaps be 
referred Rom. ix. 19 and 2 Pet. iii. 4 (see Gerhard). 


§ 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. , 589 


apostolic church), and suppressed the subject, familiar to every one, all 
the more readily because he was concerned here only with those predicates 
which involved the pvorypiov. (As to the simple ards in reference to a 548 
well-known subject, see § 22, 3 p. 146.) . On 1 Cor. vii. 36, see § 67, 1. Tth ed. 
Under a. come also Heb. xi. 12 dio Kat ad’ évos éyevynPyoav, where the 520 
term children (descendants) is readily supplied, and indeed is already im- Sth ed 
plied in yevvaoOou (cf. Gen. x. 21); and Rom. ix. 11 pyro yap yervnfevrwv 
pnoe mpagavtrwv, where, moreover, the notion of téxvwy or vidy is sufficiently 
intimated in “PeBéxxa é& évos koirny éxovoa etc. vs. 10. In Luke xvi. 4 
the subject is the debtors, cf. vs. 5. 
When the subject is not omitted, but has to be repeated from the context 
(not Heb. viii. 4), there is room sometimes for a difference of opinion, as 
in Rom. vii. 1 ; 1 Cor. xv. 25 (Heb. ix. 1). The decision in such cases 
is not grammatical, but hermeneutical. 


4. On the other hand, often but a part of the subject or of the 
predicate (if it consists of something besides the copula, see above, 
no. 2) is expressed, and the portion omitted is to be supplied from 
what is expressed in accordance with conventional usage ; as, Acts 
xxl. 16 curprAOov kal TOV waOnroarv there came also at the same 
time (some, twés) of the disciples ; with é« or avo in Luke xi. 49 
. €€ avtov arroKtevodart (Twas), Xxi. 16; Jno. xvi. 17; xxi. 10; vi. 89; 612 
Rey. ii. 10 (v. 9); xi. 9,1 cf. p. 203; Heindorf, Plat. Gorg. p. 148; 
Vie. Fritzsche, quaestion. Lucian. 201; Jno. iv. 35 ére ére tetpaenvos 
€oTt (xpdvos), Xen. Hell. 2, 3, 9; Luke xii. 47 f. ékeivos 6 SodXos 
... OapnoeTas TOAAGS ... OAlyas cf. 2 Cor. xi. 24. The notion 
of stripes is implied in dépe ; accordingly wAnyas is readily sug- 
gested (and this elliptical phrase is of frequent occurrence in 
Greek authors, Xen. A. 5, 8,12 rodrov avéxpayov ws dXiyas Taiceer, 
Aelian. anim. 10, 21 paotiyotdot roddais, Aristoph. nub. 971; 
Schol. ad Thuc. 2, 89 (ot wAelovas éveyxovtes), cf. Jacobs, Achill. 
Tat. p. 737; Ast, Plat. lege. p. 4833; Valcken. ad Luc. lLe., and 
something similar in Bos under aixicua, (cf. also the German: er 
zdhlte thm zwanzig auf, he counted him out twenty). 

The ellipsis is carried still further in 2 Cor. viii. 15 6 +6 mroXrd 
OUK éTEdvace, Kal 0 TO OALyov ovK HraTTOVyGE (from Exod. xvi. 18 
ef. vs. 17), where éywv may be supplied. Later writers employ 
this idiom (the Article with an Accusative) in various forms, e.g. 
Lucian. Catapl. 4 6 7d EvAov, Bis Acc. 9 6 ri cvpuyya, dial. m. 
10, 4 (Bhdy. 119), and it has been as fully sanctioned by usage 
in their case as in the case of the phrases specified above. See 


1 Some have infelicitously applied this ellipsis to Jno, iii. 25. 


590 ‘ § 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


Bos, ellips. p. 166. Some expositors infelicitously apply it to Matt. 
iv. 15. In Rom. xiii. 7 awddote trac Tas opetrds, TH TOV hopov, 
Tov dopor ete. the most natural ellipsis is a@zodudovae KedevovTe i.e. 
anaitoovtt. In 1 Cor. iv. 6 wa év nytvy padnte TO py dep & 
yéypartat, if we reject dpovety as spurious, an Infin. is wanting 
(per ellipsin, not as Mey. maintains [in his earlier eds. ; but not 
so in the 4th.] per aposiopesin) ; it will be sufficient to supply the 


549 general expression: to go beyond what etc., to exalt yourselves. 


Tth od. 


alt 
6th ed, 


613 


On the other hand, in 1 Cor. x. 13 trép 6 dvvacGe nothing is to be 
supplied ; the verb is used absolutely, as posse often is in Latin. 
Luther correctly renders the passage: «ber ewer Vermégen, (above 
that ye are able). 


In 1 Pet. ii. 23 wapedidov 7 Kpivovre dukaiws some supply xkptow from 
kptvovtt, Which in itself is not impossible; yet aapedidov probably is here, 
as often, to be taken reflexively : he committed himself (his cause) to him 
that judgeth righteously. There is no ellipsis whatever in Matt. xxiii. 9 
Tatépa pn Kadéonte ipav ext THs yns, call not (any man) your father on the 
earth, i.e. do not employ on the earth, i.e. among and of men, the appel- 
lation “our father;” and 1 Tim. v. 9 xyjpa Karadeyéobw pn eXatrov érov 
é€nkovra yeyovuta etc. is: as a widow let no one be enrolled who ts less than 
sixty years of age; widows entered on the list are, according to vs. 16, 
those who received support from the funds of the church. 


5. It is common, in particular, to omit substantives in certain 
fixed phrases or in special contexts, and to express their adjectives 
merely, which latter of themselves conduct the mind to the sub- 
stantives, cf. Bhdy. 183 ff Examples: 

7€pa (Bos under the word) in the expressions, 7 €8doun Heb. 
iv. 4 (of the Sabbath), €ws or péxpe THs onpepov Matt. xxvii. 8 5 
2 Cor. iii. 15 (2 Chron. xxxv. 25; Malal. 12, 309, generally in the 
Sept. and the N. T. juéoas is added), % avpiov Jas. iv. 14; Matt. 
vi. 84; Acts iv. 8,5 (8 Mace. v. 38), 7 é&s Acts xxi. 1; Luke 
vil. 11, 7H éyouévn Luke xiii. 83; Acts xx. 15, 7H émiovon Acts 
xvi. 11, 7H érépa (postridie) Acts xx. 15, 7H tpitn Luke xiii. 82 
(Xen. C. 5, 8, 27; Plut. paedag. 9, 26 trav péonv réuvew).} 

odds (Fischer as above, 259 sq.; Lob. paralip. p. 863): Luke 
xix. 4 éxeivns nuedre duépyecOar, v. 19 px) ebpovtes Trolas eisevéyKo- 
ow avtov (Cic. Att. 9,1 qua ituri sint, Cic. divin. 1, 54, 123)? 


1In Acts xix. 38 dydpator %yovrat (Strab. 13, 629) most expositors supply Amépar, 
which is quite appropriate. 

* The local meaning of the Gen. that way (cf. Germ. des Wegs) is questioned by 
Bornem. Luc. p. 37, 118, who wants to read in the two passages rola, éxelyp; yet Hm. 


§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 591 


iii. 5 @rras Ta ocKodad eis evOelas etc. (where, however, in the 
second member ddovs follows) cf. Lucian. dial. m. 10, 13 edOetav 
éxeivnv mpoiovres, Paus. 8, 23, 2, Lat. compendiaria ducere Senec. 
ep. 119, recta ire. 

tbdwp (Bos p. 501 sqq.) : Matt. x. 42 ds éay troticn ... moTHptov 550 
apuypod, Jas. iii. 11; Hpict. ench. 29,2; Arrian. Epict. 3, 12, 17 fe 
and 15,3; Lucian. mors Peregr. 44, just as we say: a glass of aoe d 
port, a bottle of sherry, etc. We find also @eppov sc. tdwp Aristoph. 614 
nub. 1040; Arrian. Epict. 3, 22,71, etc. So in Latin /rigida Plin. 
ep. 6, 16, calida Tac. Germ. 22, gelida Hor. serm. 2, 7, 91. 

ipattov (Bos p. 204sq.): Jno. xx. 12 Oewpet dvo0 ayyédous 
év NevKols Kabefouévous in white garments, Matt. xi. 8; Rev. 
Xviii. 12,16; cf. Sept. Exod. xxxiii. 4; Arrian. Epict. 3, 22, 10 
év KokKivos TepiTratav and Wetst. I. 881, 958; Bos p. 204. 

yrA@ooa: Rev. ix. 11 & 7H EXANUIKH. 

avpa (Bos p. 49; cf. Lob. paralip. p. 314): Acts xxvii. 40 
érdpavtes tov dptéuova TH Tveovan cf. Lucian. Hermot. 28, 
(similarly 7@ mvéovte sc. avéu@ Lucian. Char. 3). 

yapa (Bos p. 560 sqq.): €& evavtias ex adverso Mark xv. 39, 
which is used likewise in a figurative sense Tit. ii. 8. The same 
word is usually supplied in Luke xvii. 24 7) dotpamn 7) aotpartovca 
€x THS UT ovpavoy els THY UT ovpavov AduTret (Sept. Job xviii. 4; 
Prov. viii. 28). » open Luke i. 89 early became a substantive, 
the highlands, the hill country, Xen. Cyr. 1, 3,3; Ptol. Geogr. 
Poros 6; 9, 4. 

apa time, is regarded as omitted in the phrase ad’ 7s 2 Pet. 


Vig. p. 881 found no fault with this local Gen. which became established in the Pro- 
nominal adverbs od, rod. And many instances of this very phrase ris (aitis) 6500 
(cf. Bhdy. 138) are cited, and that not merely from poets (Avrii. Sprachl. II. 2. S. 157) ; 
ef. in particular, Thuc. 4, 47, 2 and Avi. on the passage, and Thue. 4, 33,3. If any 
one wishes to bring this local Gen. nearer to the primary import of the Gen. (§ 30, 1), 
he may take it perhaps thus: out or forth from that (way). But probably it connects 
itself more simply with the use mentioned in § 30, 11 p. 207. 

1 Many adverbial expressions arose from an ellipsis of é5és (Bttm. ausf. Sprachl. 
II. 341) or x#pa (Bos p. 561), such as ila, kat’ idtav, Snuooia Acts xvi. 37 ete., which 
no longer suggest to the mind their origin, Bhdy. 185 f. Such an adverbial expression 
also is amd wuas Luke xiv. 18, which cannot be discovered in the literary language of 
the Greeks, but was probably current in the language of conversation. It is equivalent 
to with one mind (ek mas Wuxis Dion. H. II. 1058) or with one voice (uno ore, é« mids 
gwvis Herod. 1, 4,21). Wahl, clay. p. 45, after Camerar. is too artifical. It is possible, 
moreover, that the Greeks did not understand any substantive at all originally, but 
employed the Feminine (as an abstract, Ewald, Heb. Gr. 645), just as independently 
as the Neuter, see Schaef. Bos p. 43 and the Review in the L, Lit. Zeit. 1825. no. 179 ; 
this, however, Hm. opuse. p. 162 will not admit. 


501 


7th ed. 


615 


525 


6th ed 


592 § 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


ili. 4; Luke vii. 45; Acts xxiv. 11, which, indeed, had already 
become completely an adverb (cf. however, Matt. xv. 28). The 
same applies to €€ avtjs Mark vi. 25; Acts x. 83 etc., which many 
write as one word, é€auTis. 

50 pos (or oixos) Acts ii. 27, 31 es ASou, cf. Bos p. 14; Vechner, 
Hellenol. p. 124 sq., but the best Codd. rein also] give els anv. 

yn: Matt. xxiii. 15 7 Enpa (opposed to 7) Oaracca) the continent, 
dry land (Kypke in loc.). The same substantive would have to 
be supplied in Heb. xi. 26 ot év Atyirrov Oncavpoi (Lchm.). Cf. 
Her. 8,3; Diod.S. 12,84. But the reading of Aiyirtouv Oncavpoi 
[which Cod. Sin. also gives] is better supported. 

veip inn deka,  apiotepa Matt. vi. 3 etc., deEav duddvar Gal. 
il. 9 (Xen. A. 1,6,6; 2,5, 38), év deEtd, emt tv SeEtvav Eph. i. 20; 
Matt. xxvii. 29. 

dpaxpn: Acts xix. 19 edpov dpyuvplov pupiddas trévTe, as We 
say: he is worth ten thousand. Cf. Lucian. eun. 38 and 8; Achill. 
T.5,;17. So also the names of measures are omitted Ruth iii. 15. 

vetos: Jas. v. T waxpobupov em ait@ (KapT@), ews AdBy 
Tpwipwov Kat Orrimov. 

The ellipsis in all these expressions has been sanctioned by long 
usage, and for that very reason is plain, especially in particular 
contexts, to all who are familiar with the language (cf. he put 
down red, he sat on the right, he came in a coach and six). Other 
omissions are more special (peculiar to the usus loquendi of a 
city or community), e.g. mpoBarikn (awvrAn Neh. iii. 1) Jno: v. 2 
(just as they say in Leipsic, to go out at the Grimma), yet see 
Bos under the word wvAn. Such also are ot dadexa, of émta 
(dudxovor) Acts xxi. 8; cf. in Greek ot tpiaxovta (TUpavvor). 


To this head have been referred incorrectly many expressions and phrases 


‘in which an adjective or neuter pronoun is used independently without any 


ellipsis (Krii. S. 3), e.g. 76 tepov (which at an early period had become a 
substantive) the temple, ro duorerés Acts xix. 35, to onpuxov Rev. xviii. 12, 
in biblical diction 76 dytov the holy place (in the tabernacle and the temple), 
TO tNaorypwov etc., Ta tia one’s own (possession) Jno. i. 11, 7a oa what is 
thine Luke vi. 30, ra Karérepa tis ys Eph. iv. 9 (where, however, good 
Codd. [Sin. also] add pépy), ro tpirov rév Kricpatov Rey. viii. 9 ete., and 
the adverbial expressions év zavri, cis xevdv, 70 Nouv (§ 54,1). Likewise 
in Heb. xiii. 22 Adywy is not to be supplied after Bpayéewv, any more than 


verbis or the like is to be understood after paucis, or (in quotations) tor@ 


after év érépw Acts xiii. 35; Heb. v.6. Also in 1 Cor. xv. 46 70 rvevparikoy 
and 76 Wvyxixov are used as substantives, and oGpa is not to be understood. 
Lastly, with év 7@ peragd Jno. iv. 31 xpovw is not to be supplied, but ro 


§ 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. | 593 


peraév is the Dat. of 76 peragd (Lucian. dial. d. 10, 1). Even the Gen. 
of kindred, such as Swzarpos Ivppov Acts xx. 4, “lovéas “IaxdBov, “Enpop 
Tod Svxeu (§ 30, 3), is not elliptical, but the Gen. expresses the general 
notion of belonging to, just as we say: Prussia’s bliicher (Hm. opusc. 
p- 120; Kiihner II. 118f.). For instances from Greek and Roman authors, 
see Vechner, Hellenol. p. 122 sq.; Jani, ars poet. p. 187 sq. But even 
were vids, ddeAdds, and the like, actually omitted in such expressions, it 
would still be a complete perversion to supply vids before the Genitive in 
Gal. ili. 20 6 8 pecizrys Evds otk eotw, (Kaiser de apologet. ev. Joa. 
consiliis II. 8). A word can be omitted only when the notion it expresses 
is conveyed by the context, or may be presumed to be known to the 
reader. But when it is said: the mediator is not of one, the expression 
does not even remotely intimate that precisely the word son is to be sup- 
plied. The sentence by itself merely means: does not appertain to a 
single individual. And that he appertains to him as son (instead of what 
surely must be regarded as most obvious, in his very function of mediator) 
is left wholly to conjecture ! 


On the other hand, a number of (transitive) verbs have, in a 
similar way, rid themselves in the course of time of the case of the 
noun in union with which they formed a current phrase, and are 
now used all alone to express the same meaning, e.g. duayew to 
live (in an ethical sense) Tit. iii. 3, strictly, to spend sc. tov Biov 552 
1 Tim. ii. 2. So frequently in Greek authors, Xen. C. 1, 2, 2; thed 
8, 3,50; Diod. S. 1,8. Similarly, dsatp/Bew sojourn in a place 616 
Ino. iii. 22, strictly, spend sc. tov xpévov, see Kiihnél in loc. Cf. 
in Latin agere, degere (Vechner, Hellenol. p.126f.). SuuParrew 
Twi or pos twa Acts iv. 15; xvii. 18 to confer, consult with one, 
originally cupBadrrAew Royous sermonem conferre Ceb. 33; by the 
older Greeks chiefly in the Mid. cupParrec Oar. IT poséyewv Twi 
pay attention to etc., sc. Tov vodv, cf. in Latin advertere, attendere. 
Similar is évéyew Luke xiv. 7; Actsiii.5. So perhaps also évéyeuv 
Mark vi. 19; Luke xi. 53, where, however, it is sometimes ex- 
plained to be angry, supplying yodorv (Her. 1, 118; 6, 119); but 
no instance can be found of the suppression of this Acc. *"Eme 524 
TWévar Twi (Tas xeipas) Acts xviii. 10; cf. Xen. M. 2,1,15; Cyr, bthed 
6, 3, 6. SvrAdapBavew, concipere, to become pregnant Luke 
et Ye Many verbs when used thus by themselves have become 
technical terms, as e.g. dcaxovety Jno. xii. 2 to serve at table, wpos- 
pépew Heb. v. 3 to offer, mposxuvetv to worship Jno. xii. 20; Acts 
vill. 27, Aatpevew Phil. iii. 3; Luke ii. 837; Acts xxvi. 7, Kadrety 
invite 1 Cor. x. 27 (Xen. Cyr. 2, 2,23; 8, 4,1), xpovew knock 
(at a door) Matt. vii. 7 etc., mpoBarr«w to put forth (of trees), a 

75 


594 § 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


horticultural term, Luke xxi. 80. Nautical terms are atpew weigh 
sc. Tas ayxvpas Acts xxvii. 13 (Bos p. 15) Thuc. 2, 23, like the 
Latin solvere Caes. gall. 4, 23, and xatéyew ets Acts xxvii. 40, see 
Wahl under the word. 

We must, however, be careful not to refer to this head such 
verbs as either contain in themselves a complete notion, or in a 
given context are intended to express nothing more than the 
action which they denote, and are used absolutely, as ev yaotpt 
éxew to be pregnant, Svopvacew to break through, to break im Matt. 
vi. 19, otpwrview éavtT@ sibi sternere Acts ix. 34 to make one’s bed, 
amroaTéAnewy to send (personally or by letter) Luke vii. 19; Acts 
xix. 31 (Vechner, Hellenol. p. 126), ua) éxyew to be poor 1 Cor. xi. 
22; Boisson. Philostr. epp. p. 128 (habere Jani, ars poét. p. 189), 
ayopavew Kat mwrev Rev. xii. 17.- [Just so in azoxrteveire etc. 
Matt. xxiii. 54 the actions expressed are conceived absolutely ; 
see Mey. ad loc.] For examples of verbs used abstractly, see e.g. 
1 Cor. iti, 1; x. 18 ; Heb: xii. 25; Col. ii: 21; Philip 
iv. 2f. As to macyxew in particular, see Wahl, clay. p. 887; ef. 
Weber, Demostli. p. 884. Also Luke ix. 52 @ste érorpacar adTo 
is probably to be rendered: to prepare for him, what? appears 
from the context, and €eviay from Philem. 22 is not to be supplied. 
In the same way the verbs are used in 1 Cor. xi. 4 xata Keharis 
éyov (cf. 2 Cor. v. 12) and Rev. xxii. 19 éav tis adérAn aro Tov 
Aoywv ToD BiBriov, where to supply 7s betrays an utter want of 
philological discernment. Lastly édvvac@a, used absolutely, sig- 
nifies to be able, have power, and does not require an Infin. to 
complete its sense, not even in 1 Cor. x. 13 (where vv. dreveyxeiv 
follows immediately) cf. Rom. viii. 7; 1 Cor. ii. 2; 2 Cor. xiii. 8. 

5538 (Substantives with the Article are also used thus technically in 

ith ed. doctrinal terminology, and with them a Gen. of the Person — 

617 Geod — has been looked for ; as, 2) opy7 Rom. iii. 5; v.9; xii. 19; 
1 Thess. i. 10; ii. 16, 7d OéAnua Rom. ii. 18.) 

Adjectives used attributively with substantives can be omitted only in 
very rare instances. It is quite conceivable, for example, that in the 
phrase AaXeiv érepats or Kawais yAwooats the adjective was dropped through 
frequent use, and that yAwooats AaXety alone became a technical expression 
(de Wette on Acts, S. 33). But beyond the range of local and individual 
usage (somewhat like lvbri, namely Sibyllini, or bishop in partibus for in 
part. ¢nfidelium) nothing of this sort occurs; since, owing to the diversity 
of epithets that mgy be joined to a substantive, it would not do to leave 
the reader to guess the precise one to be supplied. In 2 Pet. ii. 10 ézicw 
Gapkos mopeverGar does not need to be completed by érépas from Jude 7; 


§ 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 595 


the phrase is intelligible as it stands. In 1 Cor. vi. 20 jyyopdc@yre rysqs 
the epithet peydédns is not omitted, but the words mean simply: ye have 
been bought with a price; the emphasis lies upon the verb bought, not 
obtained for nothing. In Matt. xii. 382 6s dy ein Adyov Kata Tov viod Tov 
dvOpurov we must not supply BAdopyuov ; to speak a word against one, 
is a phrase complete in itself. In Rev. ii. 6, also, the rendering hoc 
(laudabile) habes does not assume the omission of some similar word in 
the Greek. A more plausible instance would be Acts v. 29 6 [érpos kat 
ot dooToAot, i.e. of aAAot or Aourol az. and the like ; yet on this see above, 
§ 58, 7 note, p. 520 sq. 

It would be preposterous also to supply, for instance, éva in Matt. xv. 23 525 
ovK drexpiOn airy Adyov or évé in Luke vii. 7 eizé Adyw, or twav in Mark 6th ed. 
ii. 1 dv’ qepdv (Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 440), or even wodvv in Luke xviii. 4 
émit xpovov. The notion of one is contained in the Singular, and that of 
several in the Plural. Cf. Lucian. Herm. radavrov for one talent, and eun. 

6 Hepay unum diem (in Latin, ut verbo dicam), Lucian. Alex. 15 7pépas 
oikot ewewev, Xen. Eph. 5,2; Charit. 5,9. With Luke xviii. in particular, 
cf. the well-known xpdvw Schoem. Isae. p. 444. 

Note. It would be the most absurd of all to admit the existence of an 
ellipsis of adverbs or conjunctions; and yet this has been done in a variety 
of cases by N.T. expositors. Of such interpreters Hm. opusce. p. 204 
says: qui si cogitassent, adverbia conjunctionesque proprietatibus quibus- 
dam et sententiarum inter se consociationibus ac dissociationibus indicandis 
inservire, quae nisi disertim verbis expressae vel propterea intelligi ne- 
queant, quod, si ellipsi locus esset, etiam aliena intelligi possent : numquam 
adeo absonam opinionem essent amplexi, ut voculas, quarum omissio longe 
aliter quam adjectio sententias conformat, per ellipsin negligi potuisse cre- 
derent. But ignorance of the nature of the moods is in part at the bottom 
of this opinion. Thus with Aas elrwuev Luke ix. 54; Heb. viii. 5, ete. 
some have wanted to supply a iva or Ozws, (see in opposition Hm. p. 207, 
cf, § 41, 4b. p. 285) ; so also ef or édy in sentences like 1 Cor. vii. 21 554 
SovAos exAyOys, py cor peréerw (Hm. p. 205; ef. § 60, 4c. p. 541) ; so ay Mh ed 
(Schwarz, soloec. p. 125) in Jno. xv. 22 ef pH HAPov ... dpaptiav oi« eyov 618 
and similar sentences (Hm. p. 205, see § 42, 2 p. 803 sq.) ; and so povoy 
_ frequently in the expression oix... dAdd cf. § 55, 8 p. 495 sq. or 1 Cor. 

ix. 9.1 It was likewise thought that 7 was omitted after the comparative 
in Jno. xv. 13 ; 3 Jno. 4 (BCrus.), but the clauses with iva in both passages 


1 Mh tév Body pédct tH eG; Paul takes into view here only the spiritual sense of 
the law, and considers it from the same point as Philo, who says: od yap brép trav 
arAdywv 6 vduos GAN’ itp tav voodv Kat Adyov exdvtwy, see Mey. The mdvtwy following 
ought to have deterred from such a weakening of the statement. In Rom. iv. 9, before 
jj kal an etiam, a pédvoy is not required; and in iii. 28 udvoy, in the juxtaposition of 
mioter and xwpls &pywv vduou (since in Paul’s view more and &pyots are mutually 
exclusive antitheses), would be quite superfluous, and would render the sentence 
cumbersome. On Rom. iv. 14, see Fr. in loc. 


596 § 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


are added by way of explanation to the demonstrative pronoun, the Genitive 
of which is dependent on the comparative. Likewise in instances such 
as Acts iv. 22 érav fv wAevwv tecoapaKovra, Xxill. 138, 21; xxiv. 11; 
xxv. 6; Matt. xxvi. 53 7 is not to be supplied (though it is elsewhere 
used in such a construction). The Greeks had become accustomed to 
abbreviate the phrase in this manner, and probably did not regard the 
word zAeéoves here as a comparative (more than), but as an annexed 
specification, just as elsewhere the neuter (ady.) wAéov is inserted even 
without government, see Lob. Phryn. p. 410sq.; cf. Mtth. S. 1019. 
Lastly, some wanted (Pott still) in 2 Pet. ili. 4 ag’ qs ot rarépes exoupnOnoar, 
wdvTa ovtws duapever ax apyns KTicews to supply ws before the last words, 
which would give an appropriate meaning indeed, but would be entirely 

526 arbitrary. Two termini a quo are united here in a single sentence, one 

bih el. closer and one more remote, in so far, that is, as of warépes is understood 
of those very fathers (see in particular Semler) who had received the 
promise of the zapovota. (There would be a half ellipsis in a particle, if 
ov stood for ovzw, cf. especially Withof, opusc. Ling. 1778. 8vo. p. 52 sqq. 
But in Jno. vi. 17 an ovr after the preceding 767 is to say the least 
unnecessary: 7¢ had already become dark, and Jesus had not come. In - 
Jno. vii. 8 ovzw is in fact only a correction ; if we read bix, we cannot 
remove the ethical difficulty of the passage by introducing a grammatical 
one in its place, (see also Boisson. Philostr. her. p. 502; Jacobs, Philostr. 
image. 357, and Aelian. anim. II. 250). It does not follow that od is used 
for ovzw in Mark vii. 18 because ovzw occurs in Matt. xv. 17; but in the 
latter passage also od is the better supported reading. In Mark xi. 138 not 
is completely sufficient. Against the admission of another sort of half 
ellipsis, that is, of verba simplicia for composita, see my program de verbor. 
simpl. pro compositis in N. T. usu et caussis. L. 18338. 4to.) 


6. Sometimes a partial ellipsis of both the subject and the 
predicate occurs in one and the same sentence. Gal. v. 13 povoy 
619 p17) THY ENevOepiar ets adopyay Th capKi (KatTéexnte, Tpéevrynte, Oecum. 
500 atroypnonabe). The subject as in the second person is obvious 
ith el. from the preceding é«dA#jOnre; and that part of the predicate which 
forms the copula (xareyovtes etc., A7e, Hm. Vig. 872) is easily 
gathered from eis afopyny (cf. Jacobs, Philostr. p. 525). Matt. 
xxvi. 5 (Mark xiv. 2) yu) év 7H EoptH sc. To’TO yevéoOw or TovTO. 
movmpev, unless we prefer repeating from vs. 4 the two verbs 
Kpatno. «K. amoxteiv. These words, and Gal. as above, are no 
more an aposiopesis (Mey. on Gal. [in the earlier eds.]) than the 
German: aber nur nicht am Feste (not on the feast day). On 

the partial ellipsis in sentences with wu, see Klotz, Devar. II. 669. 

» In 2 Cor. ix. 6 probably with todro dé is to be supplied Aéyw (Gal. 
iii. 17; 1 Thess. iv. 15) or dnwe (1 Cor. vii. 29; xv. 50) Bos 


§ 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 597 


p. 632 sq.; Franke, Demosth. 83; cf. Hm. Aeschyl. II. 362, or 
even doyiferGe, (for Meyer’s previous connection of this todro 6é 
with 6 c7eipwv following produces a limping construction, as he 
himself has felt; and his present view, that todro dé is an Acc. 
Abs., is far-fetched). So too in the phrase ovy d7u (... adda), 
designed to prevent a misapprehension, J say, I mean, was orig- 
inally understood before 67. (Schaef. Bos 775; Hm. Vig. 804), 
Jno. vil. 22 ovy O71 ex tod Maicéws eotiv (2) Tepitop), adr &K 
Tov Tatépwr, Vi. 46; 2 Cor. i. 24; iii. 5; Phil. iv. 17; 2 Thess. 
ili. 9. The phrase, however, became so established by use that 
its origin was no longer thought of, and so Paul could write in 
Phil. iv. 11: ody d7e Ka® tarépnow rAéywo. By the side of this 
ovy o7e might be placed ody ofov dtu: Rom. ix. 6 ody olov be dte + 
EKTETTMKEY O AOYOS TOU Oeod, i.e. ov Totov Sé Aéyw, olov Gru non tale 
(dico), quale (hoc est) excidisse etc. And the ofoy ote of the 
later writers (Schaef. Gregor. Cor. p. 105) might then be com- 
pared, and as respects circumstantiality of expression the phrases ; 
adduced by Lob. Phryn. p. 427 @s ofov, ofov ws7ep. Moreover, 527 
two explanations of that Pauline phrase have been propounded : 6th ed. 
a. It has been rendered: but it is impossible that; for the te 
usually attached to ofoy in this sense is in the first place not 
essential, and secondly it is wanting in the passage adduced by 
Wetst. from Gorgias Leont. col ove tv otov povov paptupas... 
evpeiv, cf. also Kayser, Philostr. Soph. p. 848,) and in the third 
place probably also ovy of6y re 5€ might be read (Aclian. 4, 17), 
and the construction with the Inf. éewertwxévat tov Aoyov had 
been resolved by 67s, after the fashion of the later language (cf. 
in Latin dico quod)?; de Wette’s objection falls to the ground, 

if we take Adyos Oeod as Fr. does. b. Some, with Fr., consider 
ovy oiov, as it is often used in later writers, a negative adverb: 

by no means, no such thing (properly ob tovodtov éatw Ore the thing 556 
is not such that), Polyb. 8, 82,5; 18,18, 11. To be sure, the tel 
finite verb then always follows without 672; but Paul may either 020 
have employed 67v pleonastically (like @s 67v), or have used and 
construed the phrase in the sense of multwm abest ut, far from 
being the case that. Meyer’s solution is in no respect more 
plausible. 


1 Examples of the personal ofds éori, such as Mey. adduces from Polybius, have no 
connection with the idiom here examined. Cf. Weber, Demosth. p. 469. 
2 On the relation of the Infinitive construction to a clause with 871, see Krii. 253. 


598 § 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


In Rom. ix. 16 dpa otv od tod PéAovros obde Tod TpExovros etc., where it 
is enough to supply éor¢, the subject of the impersonal sentence (therefore 
it is not of him that willeth, does not depend on the will; see, on «vai 
Tivos, above, p. 195) is to be gathered from the context: viz. the attain- 
ment of Divine mercy, vs. 15. Similar is Rom. iv. 16 61a todro ék wiorews 
(€or/), iva xara xdpw (yn), therefore from faith proceeds that of which 
I speak, namely (primarily gathered from vs. 14) 7 kAnpovopia. As to 
Rom. y. 18 see above, no. 2 p. 587. 

In Matt. v. 58 6@6adpov dvti éfOadrpod Kal dddvta avti dddvtos, the 
subject and part of the predicate are likewise omitted; although an indica- 
tion of the latter is contained in av7i. ‘The words, however, are borrowed 
from Exod. xxi. 24, where dwoes precedes. In such well-known expres- 
sions as the familiar and almost proverbial passages of the law, even a 
verb may have been suppressed that could not elsewhere have been 
omitted without ambiguity ; see under 3, b. p. 588.' 


7 Even whole propositions are sometimes omitted by ellipsis 
(Hm. opuse. p. 159; Vig. 872): 

a. Rom. xi. 21 ef yap 6 Geds TOv Kata hiow KrAddwv ovK édelcaTo, 
peytws ovde cov deiceTas sc. dédovKa or oOpate, Which, however, is 
suggested in wnwews. In Matt. xxv. 9 the text. rec. [and Cod. Sin. ] 
has pxrote ove, but there is a preponderance of authority > for 
the reading pote od pj, according to which pyrote would be 

528 taken by itself (as dehortatory) by no means! sc. dd@pev vs. 8 or 
bthel. wevécOw todro, cf. Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 9; Exod. x. 11. In Luke 
xvi. 8 there is not so much an omission of @yct or édy as rather 
an annexation in oratio recta of the further discourse of him to 
whom the expression 67¢ ¢poviiws é7oincev belongs. Similar to 
this is v. 14. In Greek prose én, or the like, is suppressed only 
either where a o 6é, gi 6é€ indicates the speaker (Aelian. 9, 29; 
anim. 1,6), or where the mere structure of the sentence indicates 
that some one (else) speaks, as frequently in dialogues. Van 
Wengel (annotatt. p. 8 sqq.) is wrong in thinking that this ellipsis 
621 (edn o Peds) occurs in Matt. xxiii. 34; see, on the other hand, Fr. 
Bengel’s remark on 1 Cor. ix. 24 is a mistake. In Matt. xvi. 7 
dteAoylCovTo év EavTols NéyovTEs* STL apTous ovK eAaBopev it is far 
more suitable to supply before ore the simple sentence tadra Aéyer 

: 


1 Akin to this Acc. in a passage of the law is that employed in all languages in 
demands, e.g. mat Aopviay, see Bos p. 601. 

[t The contrary statement is made on p. 504. Ov wh, although supported by BC D 
and by the majority of the less impertant authorities, recommended by Grsb., and adopt- 
ed by Lehm., Tisch. 2d and 7th, Alf., Treg., de Wette, Mey. et al., has been abandoned 
by Tisch. 8th ed. for ov«, which is supported by (besides N) A L Z 33 ete. —u.H.T.] 


§ 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 599 


‘and render é7u by because, than to take ére for the particle intro- 
ducing the oratio recta. In Jno. v. 6,7, the answer dv@pwrov 557 
oux éyw, wa... Badyn pe eis THY KoAvEBHOpay does not seem to Tthed 
correspond directly to the question @éXeus dryers yevéoOas ; so that 
a simple yes, certainly, may be supposed to be omitted. But the 
sick man does not stop at this simple affirmation, but immediately 
proceeds to state the obstacle which has hitherto opposed his wish. 
On passages such as Jno. i. 8 ove jv exeivos TO das, GAN iva 
paptupnon, ix. 3, see p. 316 sq. | 

b. Sometimes a long protasis is followed by no apodosis, e.g. 
2 Thess. ii. 3 f. Ore €av por) EXON 7) ArrocTacia Tpa@Tov ... btTe EoTw 
eos, it is necessary to understand from vs. 1: the mapovola tod 
kupiov does not arrive. The long protasis + involves this omission. 
So, in particular, the apodosis is wanting to a protasis with @szep 
in Matt. xxv. 14; Rom. v. 12; ix. 22 ff. see § 63, I. 1 p. 569 sq. 


Likewise, in quotations from the O. T. there sometimes seems to be an 
ellipsis of an entire sentence, as in 1 Cor. i. 31 iva, xaos yéyparra, 6 
Kavxdpevos év Kupiw KkavydoOw. After iva a yevnra or tAnpwhyn may be 
understood. The apostle, however, unconcerned about the grammatical 
sequence, attached the words of Scripture directly to his own as integral 
parts of the statement, just as in Rom. xv. 3 he introduces in direct dis- 
course the words of Christ from Ps. ]xix., cf. xv. 21. In 1 Cor. ii. 9 f., 
however, we must not with Mey. [eds. lst and 2d] take vs. 10 for the 
apodosis to & 6¢6adpos etc.; but Paul, instead of saying, in continuity 
with dAAa, rovro yty etc., annexes the antithesis directly to the words of 
the quotation, so that adAAa remains without grammatical sequence. 


II. Aposiopesis, or the suppression of a sentence or part of a 
sentence in consequence of emotion (of anger, cf. Stallb. Plat. 
Apol. p. 35,7 sorrow, fear, etc., cf. Quintil. 9, 2,54; Tiberius and 
Alexander de figuris in Walz, rhetor. graec. VIIT. 536, 450), in 529 
which case the gestures of the speaker supply what is wanting *! # 
(Hm. p. 153), occurs, not merely in forms of oaths (§ 55, note 622 
p. 500) in which it became usual, but also after conditional clauses 
in the following passages: Luke xix. 42 ef éyvws kal ov, Kalye év 
Th uépa gov TaVvTyn, TA Tpos eipryny gov, if thou also hadst known 
what concerns thy peace! sc. how fortunate that would have been 


1 To this some refer also Jas. iii. 3 (according to what is undoubtedly the true 
reading [supported also by Cod. Sin.] «i 3¢). But the apodosis is probably contained 
in the words kal 6Aov 7) cGua. See the careful discussion by Wresinger in loc. 

2 Like the well-known quos ego—! or the German: warte, ich will dich—! Eng. 
mind, or 1’ll—! The aposiopesis may occur even in the form of a question, e.g. Num. 
xiv. 27 ws Tivos Thy cuvaywyhy Thy wovnpay ta’Tnv ; cf. Acts xxiii. 9 Lchm. 


558 
7th ed. 


623 


530 


ith ol. 


600 § 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


(for thee) ; xxii. 42 adtep, ef Bovrer TapeveyKeiv TO ToTHpLOV TODTO 
amr éuod: mAnv etc. In both passages sorrow has suppressed the 
apodosis. Acts xxill. 9 ovdev Kaxov evpicxouev ev TH avOpaTr@ 
ToUTw* ef Sé TLEDUA EAdANTEV AUTO 1) Ayyedos ... we find nothing 
evil in this man; but if a spirit has spoken to him or an angel — 
(which the Pharisees utter with gestures expressive of reserve), 
sc. the matter is significant, or requires caution. Others take the 
words interrogatively (Lehm.): 7, however, ... has spoken? how 
then ? what is to be done in that case? See, in general, Fr. 
Conject. I. 80 sq. The addition pr) Pcopaydpuev found in some 
Codd. is a gloss. Bornem. has quietly retracted his earlier con- 
jecture. Moreover, it may be doubted whether in the preceding 
passage an aposiopesis really occurs, or merely a break in the 
discourse at vs. 10. In Jno. vi. 62 the apodosis, suggested readily 
by vs. 61, is omitted with an air of triumph: how strange will 
that appear to you! In Mark vii. 11 tpets Aéyere eay eitrn dvOpwrros 
TO TaTpl TH pntpl: KopBav...d éav €& euod wperdnOjs: Kab 
ovxete adiere etc. the apodosis is to be supplied from vs. 10: then 
he does right in keeping his vow, and consequently ye release him 
in this case from the obligation tiwav tov marépa etc., see Krebs 
in loc.t 2 Thess. ii. 5 ff. is an anacoluthon, and not an aposiopesis. 
Lastly, in Phil. i. 22 the assumption of an aposiopesis (Rillict) is 
quite inadmissible. An aposiopesis is in Greek authors? also most 
frequent after conditional clauses (Plat. sympos. 220 d.). Indeed 
when two conditional clauses correspond to each other it is quite 
common to suppress the apodosis after the first (Poppo, Xen. Cyr. 
p. 256; Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 197), the speaker hastening on to 
the second clause as the more important, as in Plat. Protag. 325 d. 
eav pev Exov TelOntar* et d€ wn — evOvvovaL aretials Kal TANYaIS, 
rep. 9, 575d. ovxoty éav peév Exovtes brretkwow: édv Sé pn ete. 
Thue. 8,8. So Luke xiii. 9 cav pév toujon Kaprov: ei dé pnjye, 
els TO péAXOV Exkorets avTyny If it bear fruit, well (let it remain) ; 
but if not, then cut it down (though here aes avtny may be 


1 Many expositors find an aposiopesis (?) also in the parallel passage Matt. xv. 5 
bs dy clan TH TaTp 7) TH untpl: Sapov b cay eE euod wpeAnOijs: Kal od uh TuNnon TOY 
matépa abtod — that is, he acts properly (in conformity to the law). But perhaps [yet” 
see Meyer’s objections] we should, with Groteus and Bengel, regard the apodosis as 
commencing with ral ov un: whoever says to his parents... he is not obliged also 
(in such case) to honor his parents, he is thereby also (in that case) released from the 
commandment tiua toy marépa. The cat then would not be pleonastic. 

2 From the O. T. cf. Exod. xxxii. 82; Dan. iii. 15; Zech. vi. 15 ; see Kdster, Erliuter. 
der heil. Schrift, S. 97. 


§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 601 


supplied from what precedes). (On the omission after ed 88 pj 
or ei dé un ye of the entire conditional clause, to be supplied from 
the context preceding, see above, p. 583.) 


As an aposiopesis dpa yn might also be regarded in Rey. xix. 10; xxii. 9, 
with which may be compared the forms of dehortation or deprecation, 
frequent in the tragedians, py tatra Eurip. Io 1335, py ov ye etc. Yet 
see above, p. 083 sq. 

In Rom. vii. 25 to the complaint ris pe picerar x ToD gHpatos Tod 559 

_ Oavarov rovrou ; is annexed, in an overpowering burst of joy, a brief thanks ‘th ed, 
be to God ! —also a species of aposiopesis. In unimpassioned style, Paul 
would have said: thanks be to God that he has already liberated me, ete. 

Also in 2 Cor. vii. 12 dpa €i kat éypaya tuiv some have assumed a res- 
ervation, where Billroth still wants to supply yaAerov te. Paul would thus 
have purposely omitted the word, because the affair still gave him pain. 

But éypawa is of itself complete. 


§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES; PLEONASM 
(SUPERFLUITY),! DIFFUSENESS. 


1. A Pleonasm? is the opposite of an ellipsis, as redundance is 
the opposite of deficiency. A pleonasm, accordingly, would be 
exemplified in the addition of a word that is not intended to add 
anything to the meaning of the sentence (Hm. opuse. I. 217, 222). 624 
In point of fact the earlier philologists not only believed in the 
existence of superfluous words, especially particles (Hm. opusce. 
p. 226), but Kuhnol on Matt. v. 1 (cf. Weiske, pleon. p. 84) goes 
so far as to maintain that to dpos may be used for dpos. But as 
this (pleonasm of the definite article) is a downright absurdity, 
so is the existence of expletives in the Greek literary language a 
figment. In general, pleonasm, which takes place chiefly in pred- 


1 See Fischer, Weller. III. I. 269 sqq.; B. Wetske, Pleonasmi eraeci s. commentar. 
de vocib., quae in sermone Graeco abundare dicuntur. Lips. 1807. 8vo. ; Poppo, Thucyd. 
1. I. 197 sqq. ; in reference to the N. T. Glass. Phil. sacra I. 641 sqq. (it relates, how- 
ever, more to the O. T., and is on the whole meagre) ; Bauer, Philol. Thucyd. Paull. 
p- 202 sqq.; Tezschucke, de sermon. J. Chr. p. 270 sqq.; Haab 8S. 324 ff.; J. H. Maii 
diss. de pleonasmis ling. graec. in N. T. Giess. 1728. (10 sheets). This writer had 

. intended to write a work on Pleonasms in general ; see his observatt. in libr. sacr. I. 52. 
Another work, by 1. Nascou, announced in a Prodromus (Havn. 1787. 8vo.), failed, 
in like manner, to make its appearance. 

2 Glassius, as above, has sensible remarks on the definition of a pleonasm; cf. also 
Flacti clavis script. sacr. II. 4, 224, and my Ist Progr. de verbis compos. p. 7 sq. 
Quintil. instit. 8, 3,53 gives a simple, but, rightly understood, adequate definition : 
pleonasmus vitium, cum supervacuis verbis oratio oneratur. 

; 76 


531 


602 § 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 


icates (Hm. as above, p. 219), consists in ingrafting into a sentence 
words the full import of which has been already conveyed in 


hel. another part of the same sentence (or period), either by the same 


560 
Tth ed. 


625 


or by an equivalent expression. Even this, however, is done 
intelligently only.when, 

a. From carelessness, or from want of confidence in the reader’s 
attention, the same thing is (particularly in extended sentences) 
repeated: nonne tibi ad me venienti nonne dixi? Here nonne is 
intended in reality to be thought but once. So Col. ii. 13 «al 
Umas vEKpovs OvTas év TOls TapaTT@pacl ... cvveCwoTroinoev VMAS 
abv avT@, Matt. viii. 1; Eph.ii. 11 f.; Phil. iv. 15 var. [ Matt. iv. 16] 
(Vechner, Hellenol. p. 177 sq.), Mark vii. 25 yuvn, 5 etyev To Ovya- 
Tplov avTHS veda axaBaptov, Rev. vii. 2, see § 22, 4 p. 147 sq. 
(Demosth. Huerg. 688 b. otro. @ovto éwé, ef ToAAA pou AaPoteEv 
evéyupa, dopevov apnoew je Tos uaptupas), 1 Cor. vii. 26 vopifw 
ToUTO Kadov UTdpyel ... OTL KaXOVY avOpwrTe@, Rev. xii. 9 (2) ef. 
V. Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. 14sq.; 2 Tim. iv. 9 omovdacov 
eXOety pds we TaX EWS, 2 Cor. Vill. 24 777 EvderErv +. ayarns... 
evdoetKvupevoe (yet see § 32, 2 p. 224) ef. Plato, lege. 12, 966 b. 
Thv évoerEty TO AOyw advvatety évdelxvuag Oat (Xen. Cyr. 8, 
2,5). To this head may be referred also Rom. ix. 29 Sept. os 
Topoppa av m®potwmOnmev Cin the parallel member @s ... ay 
evyernOnuev), as well as AoyiferOai or HyetcOai Twa ws 2 Cor. x. 2; 
2 Thess. iii. 15; Lucian. Peregr. 11 (instead of the Acc. alone, 
ef. > aan Job xix. 11), as even in Greek authors we find vopifeuw 
as (yet see Stallb. Plat. Phileb. p. 180) and the like. Different 
are Luke xx. 2 efzrov mpos avtov NéyovTtes, Mark xii. 26 mds 
elev avTa 6 Oeds Néyor, Acts XxViil. 25 TO mvedWa EXAAHGED... 
Néyor ete. In all these passages the Participle serves to introduce 
(as frequently in the Sept.) the direct discourse (cf. the well-known 
épn Aéyov Doderlein, Synon. IV. 18), which might assuredly be 
annexed immediately to efov, ete. Different from this, again, 
are Matt. xxii. 1; Luke xii. 16, and still more Luke xiv. 7; xvi. 2; 
XVill. 2, etc. 

Another mode of introducing the direct discourse, Luke xxii. 61 
irepvncOy Tod Adyov TOU Kupiov Os etmev adr@, Acts xi. 16 éuvyjoPyy Tod 
pypatos TOD Kupiov, os €AXeverv, is to be referred to circumstantiality (see 
below, no. 4 p. 606 sq.), like the usage of even Attic authors, Xen. Cyr. 8, 
2,14 Adyos adrod dropvypovevtat, Os A€you, see Bornem. schol. p. 141, and 
is not to be deemed a pleonasm. } 


2. Or when b. one of the synonymous expressions has, from 


§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 603 


usage, partially lost its meaning,! as in am ovpavoer (Iliad. 8, 
365), éoyos d\Awvy (Hm. Homer. hymn. in Cerer. 362), or a 
repetition, originally emphatic, has in course of time become 
weakened, as waédw adds (Hm. Vig. 886). So in the N. T. azo 
peaxpolev Matt. xxvi. 58; Mark xv. 40; Rev. xviii. 10 (Wetst. I. 
524 sq.), amo dvwev Matt. xxvii. 51; Mark xv. 88, éwesta peta 
TovTo Jno. xi. T (evOéws Twapayphua Acts xiv. 10 Cod. D) ef. émerra 532 
peta tadta Dem. Neaer. 530 etc., eita peta todo or tadra Arist. Ml el 
rhet. 2,9,13; Plat. Lach.190e. For similar instances, see Poppo, 
Thue. II. I. 348; II. I. 38;2 in Latin deinde postea Cic. Mil. 561 
24, 65, post deinde, tum deinde ete. Vechner, Hellenol. p. 156 sqq. ae 
Also Luke xix. 4 rpodpayov éumpoodev (Xen. CO. 2, 2,7; 7, 

1, 36), iv. 29 éx Badrrew €&w, Luke xxiv. 50 é€&dyew Fo, Rev. 

ili. 12 (Lob..Soph. Aj. p. 8337; Bornem. schol. 166 sq.), Acts xviii. 21 
TaNtv avakaprrew (Ceb. 29, cf. Kritz, Sallust. I, 88), Mark 
vil. 36 waXXOv Tepicad Te pov (§ 35,1 p. 240, cf. Hm. opuse. 222 ; 
Vechner, Hellenol. p.166 sqq.), Luke xxii. 11 épetre 76 00K 0 SearroTy 

Ts otxvas*® (Bornem. in loc.), Rev. xviii. 22, cf. Odyss. 14, 101 
ovav ovPoata, Her. 5, 64 ocrpatnyov ths octpatijs, Plato, legg. 2, 
671 d.; Cedren. I. 843; Theocr. 25, 95; Jno. xii. 13 ra Baia trav 
dowikwy (Baia of itself signifies palm branches), Acts ii. 30 
6pk@ @moaev 6 Geos, cf. Exod. xxv. 12. See Jacob, quaest. 
Lucian. p. 10; Bornem. Xen. conv. 186; Pflugk, Eurip. Hee. 

p- 18; Lob. paralip. 534 sqq. 

To this head are to be referred the established schemata: 

a. that xaé is used after particles of comparison, Acts xi. 17 626 
el THY lony dwpeav EdwKev avTois o Beds ws Kal piv, 1 Cor. vii. T 
Oérw wavtas avOpwtrovs eivar @s Kal ewauTov (see above, p. 440) ; 
for the also is already implied in the comparison, which makes 
this very declaration that something takes place also in the case 
of a second object. 


1 From the department of Etymology may be adduced, as instances. of the same 
nature, the double comparatives pe(érepos etc., see § 11, 2 p. 69. In German, ef. 
mehrere, for which pedantic purists would substitute, both in writing and speaking, 
mehre. 

2 Cf. from later writers ard mayvraxddev Const. Manass. p. 127, a7d qpwiGev or unnddev 
Theophan. cont. 519, 524, é« ducuddev Nicet. Annal. 18, p. 359 d., é« masdd0ev or vnmidbev 
Malal. 18, p. 429; 5, p. 117, €vexa wept Cedren. 1, p. 716, mep) ... evexa Niceph. Cpolit. 
p- 6, 35, av ay vera Theophan. cont. p. 138, av6 dv bre Deut. xxviii. 62. On the 
last examples, see Hm. opusc. 220. 

3 Oixodouciy olkov Luke vi. 48 is no more a pleonasm than aedificare domum, as both 
verbs acquired at a very early period, from usage, the signification of to build (generally). 
See other instances of the sort in Lobeck, paralip. p. 501 sq. 


562 
Tth ed. 


533 
6th ed. 


604. § 65, REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 


8. that an additional negative is annexed to a verb of negation 
in a clause dependent on that verb and supplementing it, 1 Jno. 
ii. 22 6 dpvotpevos, btu’ Incods odK« Eat o Xprotos, Luke xx. 27 
avTinéyovtes, 1) elvat avdotaow (Xen. C. 2, 2, 20; An. 2,5, 29; 
Isoer. Trapez. 860,; Dem. Phorm. 585; Thuc. 1, 77), Heb. xii. 19 
ol adkovoavTEs TapynTicavTo 41) TposteOHvar avtois Aoyov (Thue. 
5,63), Gal. v. 7 tis tpas evéxoe TH adnela wn meiOecPar (Kurip. 
Hee. 860). Cf. further Luke iv. 42; Acts xx. 27; 1 Pet. iii. 10 
(Thue. 5, 25; 7,53; Plat. Phaed. 117 ¢.; Demosth. Phaenipp. 
654b.; see Vig. pp. 459, 811; Alberti, observ. p. 470 sq. ; Thilo, 
Act. Thom. p. 10; Bttm. exc. 2 in Mid. p. 142 sqq.; Mtth. 1242 f.). 

The German employs a similar construction in the conversational 
style; and this usage in Greek may be accounted for by the cir- 
cumstantiality peculiar to familiar discourse, since in these verbs 
the force of the negation gradually became less sensible, and thus 
was expressly renewed in the dependent clause, cf. Mdv. 8. 248. 
Recent writers, indeed, maintain that this mode of expression is 
not to be considered as pleonastic (Hm. opuse. p. 232; Klotz, 
Devar. p. 6681); yet logically one of the negatives is undeniably 
superfluous. (But even in the N.T. the negation is not always 
subjoined, e.g. after verbs of hindering Luke xxiii. 2; Acts viii. 36 
[1 Thess. ii. 16] ; Rom, xv. 22; cf. Mtth. 1243; Mdv. 248; Klotz, 
Devar. p. 668.) 

On the other hand, the following constructions are different from the 
preceding: Acts x. 15 mdAw é« devrépov (cf. Jno. iv. 54), Jno. xxi. 16 
ardédw Sevrepov (Plut. Phil. c. 15), Gal. iv. 9 rdAw avofev (Isocr. Areopag. 
p- 338 wadw e& dpxns), rursus denuo (Hand, Tursell. II. 279); in all 
which passages a more definite word is added as explanatory. Still greater 
difference is there in Acts y. 23 according to the reading tovs @vAakas ew 
éoTatas mpo Tov Ovpdv (Xen. Cyr. 7, 1, 25); also in Luke ii. 86 atrn jv 
mpoBeBynkvia ev Huépors toAXais (cf. i. 7, 18), for the meaning is: she 
was far advanced (Lucian. Peregr. 27 zoppwrdtw yypws tpoB_eBykas) ; Rey. 


ix. 7 7a Opotdpata tov axpidov Opota immors, for dpoudpara signifies 


627 forms, cf. Ezek. x. 22; 1 Pet. iii. 17 ef O€XNou 76 O€Anpa Tod Geod si 


placuerit voluntati divinae, since @éAnua means the will itself and OéAew 
the operation of the will (like the stream streams etc.) cf. Jas. iii. 4. In 
Jno. xx. 4, however, 7po éSpapev Taxtov Tov Ilérpov is to be taken thus: 
he ran on before, faster than Peter (closer specification). In 2 Pet. iii. 6 
%dare would not be superfluous even if t8dérwy were supplied with 8¢ dv; 


1 Non otiosam esse negationem in ejusmodi locis, sed ita poni infinitivum, ut non 
res, quae prohibenda videatur, intelligatur, sed qua vi ac potestate istius prohibitionis 
jam non fiat. 


§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 605 


it would designate water as an element, whereas vdara (cf. Gen. vii. 11) 
would signify the concrete (separate) bodies of water. Cf. further, Jude 4. 
As to Heb. vi. 6 see my 3d Progr. de verbb. compos. p. 10. That Luke 
xx. 43 tromdduov tév zodév cov (Heb. i. 13) footstool of thy feet, Gen. 
xvii. 13 6 oikoyevys THs oikias cov (Deut. vii. 13) are not, on account of the 
Gen. annexed, entirely similar to the preceding examples, is obvious. 
Lastly, such passages as Mark viii. 4 de... é epnylas, xill. 29 eyyts... 
ext Ovpats, 2 ‘Tim. ii. 10 do not properly fall under the notion of pleonasm 
(Heinichen, Euseb. II. 186), but of apposition. Likewise Mark xii. 23 
év 77) Gvacrtdcel, OTay avacr&or can hardly be called diffuseness, as the last 
clause here is an application of the general év ty dvaor. to the brothers 
mentioned in ys. 20 ff. See Lob. paralip. p. 534. As a half pleonasm 
might dou etwdias Eph. v. 2 (both derivatives of ofw) be regarded, and 
compared perhaps to zaidwy dzos (Eurip. Androm. 613; Hm. opuse. 
p- 221). . But it signifies an odor of sweet smell; douy is the smell as 
inhaled, edwdfa is its quality. 

3. ¢. Lastly, many redundancies are attributable to a blending 
of two constructions, Hm. opusc. p. 224; Vig. p. 887; as, Luke 
ii. 21 Ore €mAHaOAncay apépat OKT@... Kai EKAHON TO dvoua (instead 
of edo. 5é ay. ... Kal, or OTe é7r. ... EKANON), Vil. 12 @s Fryyioe 563 
Th TUAN Ths Toews, Kal iSod éFexoplfero TeOvNKas, Acts x. 17. To Mhet 
this head might be referred also Rom. ix. 29 (see under a.) ; and 
it is even possible that é7v before the oratio recta originated in 
this way (Rost, Gr. 641). With more assurance may we explain 
thus the pleonastic negation in the phrase é«tos e¢ un (Devar. 1, 
74): 1 Cor. xiv. 5 pear o rpodytevwv 7) 0 NaXBY yAWoaals, EKTOS 
el pr) Stepunvevn except he interpret, xv. 2; 1Tim.v 19. The 534 
Germans in colloquial speech often employ a similar mode of phe 
expression: alle waren xzugegen, ausgenommen du nicht; ich 
komme nicht, bevor du nicht gesagt hast etc. In the preceding 
quotation, either éxros e¢ Svepunveby or et pur) Stepunvedn might have 
been used. On that and other similar phrases (such as way ef 
py) much has been collected by Lob. Phryn. p. 459; cf. also 
Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 869; Doederlein, Oed. Col. p. 382 sqq. On 
the other hand, in the expression e¢ dé su) ye, when it seems to 
mean, but if not, otherwise (after a negative clause) Matt. vi. 1; 
ix. 17; 2 Cor. xi. 16, the negation cannot be considered as pleo- 
nastic according to the original import of the phrase; see Fr. 628 
Mt. p. 255. 

4. The greater part of what has been called pleonasm in the 
N. T. (and out of it) is circumstantiality or more frequently 
fulness of expression (Hm. opusc. p. 222 sqq. and Vig. 887 ; 


606 § 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 


Poppo, Thue. I. I. 204 sqq.); the former of which arises from the 
writer’s endeavor to be rightly understood, and the latter is de- 
signed to give vividness, force (solemnity), sonorousness to style. 
It must also be remembered that the N.'T. diction is to a great 
extent conversational, or akin to it; and that the above-mentioned 
peculiarities are pre-eminently characteristic of Oriental expres- 
sion. Such phraseology differs from pleonasm in this, that every 
word and part of a word in a sentence contains something intended 
to add to the general meaning, though it may not be absolutely 
necessary for the logical completeness of the thought, e.g. Mark 
i. 17 roujow twas yevécOat arses avOporwr, for which Matt. 
iv. 19 has woumjow tpas adeis av@porev. The opposite is not 
ellipsis, but conciseness. 

In the first place, as respects circumstantiality the following 
cases are to be distinguished : - 

a. A word, only required once to complete the thought, is 
repeated in every parallel member where it might have been simply 
understood :! Heb. ii. 16 od yap ayyékov EmtNapBaveTtat, ara 
oméppatos “ABp. émttapPavetas, Jno. xii. 3 Hrenpev TovsS 
modas Tod “Incod Kai é&éuake tails OpiEly adths Tods modas 
avtov, Rev. xiv.2 }xKovca hoviyv €x Tod ovpavo... Kal 1) horn, 
hv HKovoa, ix. 21; xvi.18-; 1.Cor. xii.12; xv.54;3 Plies 

564 iv. 17; Jno. x.10; Rev. ix. 1f.; Mark i. 40; Matt. xviii. 32, ef. 
ith ed. i) Greek authors, Xen. Mem. 2, 10, 8; Demosth. Zenoth. 576 ce. ; 
Long. 2, 3; Lucian. Cynic. 9; Jacob, Lucian. Alex. 117 ; Poppo, 
Thue. III. Il. 23; in Latin the expressions, especially frequent in 
Jul. Caesar, in ea loca, quibus in locis; dies, quo die etc. Such 
repetitions ensure perspicuity, particularly when several words in- 
tervene. Sometimes repetitions have a rhetorical aspect, see no. 5. 

b. The usual or indispensable instrument (e.g. a human limb) 

is expressly mentioned along with the action in point: Acts 
585 xv. 23 yparbavtes dua yetpos avtav (they were to deliver it), xi. 80 
fon (2 Cor. xi. 83) 5 xix. 11; iil. 18 wpocatnyyeire dua cTOMaTos TaVT@Y 
““ tov mpopntav, xv. 7; Luke i. 70 etc. Cf. from the poets, Kurip. 
Ton 1187 yepoiv exyéwv orroveds (var.), Hec. 526 f. ; Theocr. 7, 158 
Toca xopedoat, see Lob. Aj. p. 222 f. (Wunder, Recens. p. 17 sq.). 
But in Rom. x. 15 (Sept.) ws @patou of modes THY evayyertopévwv 


1 We must judge differently many of the repetitions used by the orators who had in 
view the delivery before the people of what they had written; cf. Foertsch, de locis 
Lysiae, p. 29. Of a different nature also is the repetition of the: same word in Plat. - 
Charm. 168 a. 


§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 607 


etpjvnv the notion of arrival, implied in zoées, is very far from 
being superfluous; and in 1 Jno. i. 1 0 éwpdxapev Tots op@ad- 
wots juav (Luke ii. 30) an emphasis is obviously intended in 
the last words, like: to see with one’s own eyes (Hesiod. theog. 701 ; 
Thue. 2,11; Aristot. mirab. 160 ; Heliod. 4,19; see Bremi, Aesch. 
I. 124; cf. Jani ars poet. p. 220sq.). And in Mark vi. 2; Acts 
y. 12 it is to be considered that the miracles in question were 
wrought by the laying on of hands. But analogous to this (cir- 
cumstantial) form of expression is Luke i. 76 apomopevon mpo 
@Tpos@movu Kuptov, ix. 52 (35>), a phrase used also as precisely 
equivalent to before (in reference to inanimate objects): Acts 
xiii. 24 mpd mpos@mouv THs eisodov avtod, cf. Sept. Num. xix. 4 
aTrévavTl TOU Tposwtrov THs oKnVvAs, Ps. xciv. 6 Kata mTpdsw7rov 
GvELov. 

c. An action which according to the nature of the case precedes 
another, is also expressed separately, and generally by a participle : 
Matt. xxvi. 51 é€xteivas tTHv yetpa aréoracey THY payatpav 
avTov, ll. 8 OTws Kayo ENO@V TposkuVjcw avT@® (Xiv. 35), Jno. 
Vi. 0 €m@apas Tovs ofOarpors Kal Oeacdpevos etc., Matt. xiii. 31 
Ouola KOKK® oWaTrEws, OV NaBav avOpwros Eorrecper etc. Vs. 33; 
Acts xvi. 3 (Xen. Eph. 3, 4 0 6€ avrov ANaBawv ayes pos Tov ’AvOiav, 
see Locella p. 141), Jno. vi. 15 yvovs btt wédXroveW Epyer Oat Kal 
apTagew avtov, Matt. xix.21. Likewise in 1 Cor. ii. 1 cayo éXOav 
Tpos vuas, adedgol, 7AOov ov etc. the participle was not necessary. 
What Bornem. Cyrop. 5, 8, 2 has adduced is of a different nature, 
as in his passages the participle is separated by several words from 
its verb. On the other hand, in Luke i. 81 ovAdj Wn €v yaorpi 
kal TéEn viov etc. no one will find a mere redundancy of language ; 
the momentous nature of the favor vouchsafed her is expressed 
by specifying its several particulars. In Luke xxiv. 50 ésdpas 
Tas YEelpas auTov evroYnoeV avTovs the participle denotes the sym- 
bolical gesture of the person blessing. In Eph. ii. 1% €\@ov marks 
a particular both important and demanding distinct consideration ; 
so too in Luke xii. 87. Likewise in Jno. xxi. 13 épyetas “Incods 565 
Kal AapBaver Tov apTov Kal Siowow avrois every separate act of the 7th ed, 
wonderful occurrence is designedly specified, and, as it were, 
placed before the eyes. In Jno. xi. 48 éXevcovtat of ‘Pwpaior 630 
refers to the approach of the Roman armies. See, further, Matt. 
vill. 3, 7; ix. 18; xxvii. 48 ; Luke vi. 20 (Ael. 12, 22) ; Jno. xv. 16; 
Rey. xvi. 1, 2. And in Acts viii. 35 dvoiEas 0 Pikurmos TO oTOpa 
avTod Kal apEdmevos ard Ths ypapis Tavrns evnyyehicaro etc. prob- 


536 
Gth ed. 


631 


566 
7th ed. 


608 § 65, REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 


ably dvoi£as Tb otdua etc. serves for the (solemn) introduction of 
an important discourse ; as undoubtedly is the case in Matt. v. 2 
(see Fr. in loc.). Cf. in general, Fischer, de vitiis lexic. p. 223sqq. ; 
Pflugk, Eurip. Hel. p. 134. 

d. A word which we are accustomed to think is implied ‘in 
another is also explicitly stated: Acts ili. 3 npwta éXenuoouvnv 
NaPetv (see Wetst. in loc. and Boisson. Hunap. p. 459; ef. Vir. 
Aen. 5, 262 loricam...donat habere viro), Mark i. 17 roujow 
buds yevécBat arteis avOpwmwr, see above, p. 606; ef. Exod. 
xxiii. 15 ; Demosth. ep. 3, p. 114 b. 4) Kat tovs avatcOyjTous avextous 
mo.ely doxet yiver Oat. 

_e. In the course of a narration the Hebraistic cal éyévero is 
prefixed to particular occurrences: Matt. vii. 28 cal éyéveto, OTe 
cuveTénecev ... e&eTAHooovTO, for which a Greek author would 
say simply, cal ote or Ore 5é ouver. etc.! On the other hand, in 
Jno. xi. 11 radra eivev, Kai peta TovTO A€éyet avTots, neither TavTa 
elev Nor peTa TovTo is superfluous; the latter indicates a pause. 


To c. might be referred also the use of the participle dvacrds, as in 
Matt. ix. 9 dvacras AKodovOnoce aire, Mark ii. 14; vii. 24; Luke i. 39 
(similar to the Hebrew opss). But although here dvagrds was not nec- 
essary, yet this participle is by no means redundant in other passages 
which expositors bring under the same rule. Thus in Matt. xxvi. 62 
advactTas 6 dpxiepeds eirev ai7G means obviously: he stood up from indig- 
nation, he rose (from his seat); similar is Acts v.17; Mark i. 35 zpwi 
evvuxov Aiav dvagtas e&pdbe rising in the morning, while it was still very 
dark, etc.; Luke xv. 18 dvacras ropevoopmat mpos Tov rarépa pov (I will 
arise and go) J will forthwith, etc. In general, too many participles in 
the N.'T. have been represented as redundant; and though the decision: 
may occasionally be doubtful, yet very many of them express notions 
which were they not expressed would be missed. Thus‘in 1 Cor. vi. 16 
dpas ovv Ta pédn Tod Xpictod roujow Topvns péeAyn; (see Bengel in loc. 
Aristoph. eq. 1130 ; Soph. O. R. 1270), 1 Pet. 111. 19 rots &v fvAaky zvevpact 
mopevbels exnpvéev. In Luke xii. 87 rapeAOdv diaxovyce: airois drawing 
near, he will serve them, even tested by our Western notions, is more 
striking and vivid than if zapeAOav had been omitted, (wapeA@dv in Ael. 
2, 30 likewise, does not seem to me redundant). Cf. in general, Schaef. 


1 This always occurs when an additional specification of time precedes the principal 
clause, and the principal verb is then appended either by raf (see on this Fr. Mt. p. 341), 
as in Matt. ix. 10; Luke v. 1, 12; ix. 51, or more frequently without a copula, as in 
Matt. xi. 1.3, xiii. 5385 xix: -1{;,xxvi.1; Mark iv. 4; Luke i..8, 41; ii, letemeeee 
usage is most frequent in Luke’s Gospel. To render this kai by also, even, is far from 
a happy thought, Born. Schol. p. 25. Besides, this éyévero is pleonastic, as the speci- 
fication of time might be directly joined to the principal verb. 


§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 609 


Soph. I. 253, 278 ; II. 314; Demosth. IV. 623; Pflugk, Eurip. Hel. p. 134; 
Mtth. 1300 f. 

Further, with Acts iii. 3 under d. may be compared Acts xi. 22 éfazré- 
oreilev BapvaBav dreAOetv ews “Avtioyeias (where the ancient versions 
drop the Inf. as superfluous, though it undoubtedly existed in the text), 
which, however, properly signifies: they sent him out with the commission 
to go ete. Similar is Acts xx. 1 é&AGev ropevO7var cis tv Maxedoviav he 
departed to go to Macedonia. Cf. also Caes. civ. 8,53. On the other hand, 
I cannot with Born. find a mere redundancy in oi 8 karagiwbévres Tod 
ai@vos éxeivov Tuxetv Luke xx. 35. The rvyetv denotes something not 
strictly implied in kxaragiodcfa. preceding, and is required to render the 
expression complete and perspicuous. Cf. Demosth. cor. p. 328 b. Kar’ 
GvTO ToUTO GELOS eit Emaivov TvxELv, and Bos, exercit. p.48; Bornem. 
schol. p. 125. 

Such idioms as Mark xi. 5 ri zovetre AVovres TOV tHAOV, Acts xxi, 13 ri 
motetre KAatovres Kal cvvOpiarovtTés prov THV Kapdlav, in comparison with the 
usual ri Avere, KAalere, appear to be, in like manner, circumstantial. But 
what do ye loosing properly denotes: what is your intention in loosing, 
quid hoe sibi vult? vovciv, therefore, has not here the general meaning of 
do, which is already contained in every special verb; and the phrase 7é 
Avere (for) what loose ye? may with more probability be regarded as 
abbreviated, than the preceding phrase as redundant. 


}. fulness of expression, by which the writer aims sometimes 
- at didactic or rhetorical force (solemnity), sometimes at graphic 
vividness, occurs generally in one of the following forms: 

a. The same word is once and again repeated in parallel members 
(Xen. An. 3, 4, 45): Eph. ii. 17 evnyyericato etpyyny tyiv Tots 
paxpav Kat eipnunv Tots eyyvs, Jno. Vi. 63 Ta pryata ... Tvedud 
éotiyv Kat on éotiv, Col.i.28 vovOerotvtes TavtTa avOpwTov 
Kat OtodoKovtTes TaVTAa avOpwTor, Jno.i. 10; ix. 5; xiv. 26, 
Bee Lo: xix, 10> Matt.xii. 37; Rom..v. 12; xiv. 14;.1 Cor. 
i, 24, 27; xiii. 11; 2 Cor. xi. 26; Rom. (ili. 31) viii. 15 ov« 
éXNaBere mvevpa dovrclas ... GAA éXABeETE Tveidpa ViolEcias 
Gn Heb. xii. 18, 22 the repetition was essential to perspicuity) ; 
1 Cor. x. 1 f. ot matépes qyav mavTes vTO THY vedéAnY Hoav Kal 
TavTes ova THS Oaracons SindOov, Kai TavTes eis TOV Mavojv 
éBarticavto Kal wavTes ... Kal waves ete. (Caes. bell. gall. 
ie: lv. 85.2 Cor, yn..2+) 1 Cor xiv. 243. Rev. 
vill. 7,12; 1 Cor. vi. 11 &@XXAaG aTeroIcacbe, AXA HyLacOnrTe, 
aN &ixawHOnre, i. 20; iv. 8; 1 Tim. v. 10; 2 Cor. vi. 2 cdod 


632 


vov Kalpos evTrposdextos, tdov viv npépa ocwtnpias (Arrian. Kpict. 567 


8, 23, 20), xi. 20; Eph. vi. 12,17; v.10; 1Jno.i.1; Rev. xiv. 8; 


77 


610 § 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 


Xvili. 2 (likewise the polysyndeton in Rev. vii. 12; Rom. ii. 17 f. ; 
1 Cor. xiii. 2 may be referred to this head). So often in earnest 
addresses ; as, Matt. xxv. 11 kvpie, kdpre, avorEov nyiv, xxiii. 27 ; 
Luke viii. 24; x. 41; xxii. 81; Acts ix. 4, and demands Jno. 
xix. 6; Kriig. Dion. p. 11. In all these cases it was not to be 
left to the reader to repeat in thought a word employed once, but 
as often as it is to be understood the writer expresses it, in order 
to render its importance perceptible (especially €« mapaddrov 
Rom. xi. 82; 1 Cor. xv. 21). 

b. Especially often (particularly by John) is a thought, intended 
to be brought out with great precision, expressed affirmatively in 
one member of a sentence and negatively in another (parallelismus 
antitheticus, see Hm. opuse. p. 223): Jno. i. 20 auoroynce Kal ovK 
npynoato, Eph. v. 15 py @s aoopot aAN ws codol, vs. 17; Jno. i. 3; 
ll. 16; x. 5 (xviii. 20) ; xx. 273 1 Jno.*i: 6; it. 4:2 
i, 20; Acts xviii. 9; 1Tim.ii. 7; Jas. i. 5,23; 1 Petas2osieee 

038 Heb. vii. 21; x. 37 (Sept.); xii. 8; Rev. 11.138; in. 9 (Deut: 
Shel. xxviii. 18; Isa. iii. 9; xxxviii. 1; Ezek. xviii. 21; Hos. v. 3); 
ef. Eurip. El. 1057 nut Kote amapvodpa, Acl. an. 2, 43 ov« 
apvovvTat ol avOpwrot aXX oporoyovar, especially in the orators, 
Dem. fals. leg. p. 200¢. dpdcw Kai ovK amoxpurouat, see Maii 
* observ. sacr. II. T7 sqq.; Kypke I. 850 sq. ; Poppo, Thucyd. I. I.. 
204; Hm. Med. ed. Elmsley p. 361 and Soph. Oed. Col. p. 41; 
Philoct. p. 44; Jacob, quaest. Lucian. p. 19; Weber, Demosth. 

p. 814; Boisson. Eunap. p. 164 sqq.; Maetzner, Antiph. p. 157. 

c. In the following combinations graphic effect is aimed at: 
Acts xxvii. 20 wepunpeiro éXtis aca, Rom. vill. 22 maca 
H KTiols cvaTEVvater Kal cuv@bive, Matt. ix. 85; cf. Diod. S. IV. 
41 weptvubdpevos To chpa wav, Strabo 11, 500 rorArats oup- 
TAnpovmevos mnyats, Lucian. paras. 12; Long. 4,15; Cic. sen. 18 
consurrexisse omnes, Liv. 33, 29 cum omnia terrore et fuga com- 
plessent, see my 2d Progr. de verb. compos. p. 21 sq. 

d. Likewise the forms of address in Acts i. 11 avdpes Tadiraioz, 

638 iii. 12 dvdpes "Iopanrira, ii. 14; v. 85; xiii. 16 have the same 
(courteous) force (men of Israel!) as the well-known avépes 
"A@nvaio, which itself occurs in Acts xvii. 22, or dvdpes Sixacrai. 
See § 59, 1 p. 528. . . 


Every single word was indispensable in 2 Cor. ii. 16 ofs wév dcp Oavérou 
eis Oavarov, ois dé dopz) Cwys eis Cwnv. A savor of death unto death, a savor 
of life unto life, means: an odor of death which, from its nature, can 
bring nothing else than death, ete. 


§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 611 


Redundancy of expression is often erroneously supposed to exist in 
passages where synonymes are found connected in order to express (as 
frequently in Demosth.) a single main idea, see Schaef. Demosth. I. 209, 
320, 756; Plutarch. LV. 387; V.106; Weber, Demosth. p. 376; Franke, 
Demosth. p. 12; Bremi, Aeschin. I. 79; Lucian. Alex. ed. Jacob p. 24; 
Poppo, Thue. III. I. 619 ; Schoem. Plut. Agis 171; cf. Lob. paralip. 61 sq. 

But Paul, from whom the examples in question have mostly been taken, 568 
is not in the habit of combining in one sentence really synonymous expres- Ith ed. 
sions, — (not even in Eph. i. 5,19; ii, 1; iv. 23; 1 Cor. 1.10; ii. 4; 
eee ii. 1; vy. >; cf. Jas. ili. 15; Jno. xii. 49; 1 Pet. 1.4; iv. 9; 1-Jno. 

i. 1, etc.; Fr. Rom. I]. 372). A more careful study of Greek, but especially 

of apostolic diction, precludes a supposition according to which e.g. the 
apostolic salutation ydpis, eAcos Kat eipyvy, Would become extremely flat. 
Likewise there is nothing pleonastic in the combinations @uuos dpyns 
Rey. xvi. 19, réAayos tis Gakacons Matt. xviii. 6, éripdvera tis Tapovcias 

2 Thess. ii. 8, orwAdyxva édéovs or oixtippod Luke i. 78; Col. ili. 12. The 
second of these was correctly rendered aequor maris by so early a critic 

as Wetstein ; z¢Aayos, that is, denotes the expanse (of the sea), and is thus 
applied to the surface of a river also, see Schwarz, commentar. p. 10672 
And o7Adyxva is a comprehensive expression which is more closely defined 

by the Genitive. The parallelismus membrorum, which occasionally 539 
occurs in the N. T. (see § 68, 3), has nothing to do with pleonasm. As Mth ed. 
to the parallel distribution of doctrinal particulars in Rom. iv. 25; x. 10, 

_ see de Wette on the first passage. 


6. The pleonasm of entire sentences is inconceivable. When 
a sentence is expressed a second time with but slight alteration, 
the writer’s object always is to give to a thought peculiar force, or 
to exhibit it under different points of view. This occurs in 2 Cor. 
xli. 7 7H UrepBorH THY atoKadiewv tva 1) UTepalpwuar, €600n 634 
pot cxodo ... va pe Kohadi{y, tva wy UTEpalpwpas (where 
the last words are omitted, it is true, in good Codd. [also Sin.*], 
but surely only because they seemed superfluous), Rey. ii. 5 
peTavoncov Kal Ta TPA@TA Epya Tolncov: ef dé wx (peTavoets), 
Epxomat cou Tax Kal KWijow THY AvYViaV GoU eK TOD TOTrOU avTHs, 
éav py pwetavonons (cf. Plat. Gorg. 514a. jyiv éemvyerpntéov 
€oti ... Oeparrevew, as Bedtictouvs adtods Tovs ToNiTas TroLODYTAS ° 


1 Schdfer’s remark, Demosth. I. 320, “ usus (synonymorum) duplex, gravior alter, 
ut vim concilient orationi, alter levior, ut vel aures expleant vel numeros reddant 
jucundiores,” has reference primarily only to the orators. 

2 The investigation of N. T. synonymes (begun not infelicitously by Bengel) has lately 
been prosecuted, rather on the principle of free combination than historically, by 
Tittmann (de synonymis N. T. lib. I. Lipsiae 1829. 8vo.). Further, cf. also the col- 
lections and remarks in Bornemann’s diss. de glossem. N. T. p. 29 sqq. 


612 § 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 


advev yap 6) TovTOV, ws év Tos eumpocOev evpioxopev, ovdév 

Oderos ... Cav WN KAN KAaYAOH » Stdvolta 7 TOV WEAXOYT OY 

etc. Stallb. Plat. apol. p. 28). On 1 Cor. xiv. 6 see Mey. On 

1 Cor. vii. 26, see above, no. 1 p.602. On the other hand, in 1 Jno. 

ii. 27 @s 70 avTO ypiopa OiwWdacKe pas... Kal, KaOws édidakev 

Umas, mevetre ev av7@® the resumptive phrase caOes etc. is so far 

from being a pleonasm, that it could hardly have been dispensed 

with. Similar is Rev. x. 38,4. Cf as to such expressions Hm. 

069 Hurip. Bacch. 1060 and Soph. Antig. 691; Philoct. 269, 454 ; 

bes Reisig, conject. Aristoph. p. 514 sq.; Heind. Plat. Phaed. p. 52 

and Cic. nat. d. 1,16; Schaef. Demosth. V. 726; Mtth. 1541 f. 

Of a different nature is Rev. ii. 13 ofda rod Katouxets+ d7rov 6 Cpovos 

Tod catava, where d7rov 6 O@povos etc. is immediately annexed to 

explain (as if in answer to) vod xatoixets. So might also Mark 

ii. 24 be taken; but 7é here is probably why? On the other hand, 

2 Cor. vii. 8; Jno. xiii. 17 do not come under this head ; and in 

1 Cor. i. 22 the clause ézevd7 cal “Iovdatou ... wwpiav is manifestly 

not a mere repetition of ézred?) yap ... Tov Yeov vs. 21, any more 

than sets o€ Knpvocomey etc. vs. 23 is a mere echo of the words 

in vs. 21 evddnnoev 6 Gecs ete. And in Rom. vi. 16 ov« oféareé, ort 

© Tapictavete EavTovs SovAOVS Els UTraKoHV, SovAOL éoTE @ UTAKOVETE 

would not have been a mere uttering of idem per idem, even had 

Tot apaptias els Oavatov % wvmraKons eis Sixavoovyny not been 

straightway annexed to dodAve as a closer specification. As little 

do the two members of the sentence Rom. vi. 6 tva katapyn@n To 

cHua THs apaptias, ToD punkéte Sovdevery Huds TH awaptia com- 

pletely coincide in sense; the latter is the aim, concretely expressed, 

of what, designated generally, is the catapynOjvae of the cama Tis 

apaptias. 1 Pet. ii. 16, however, does not remotely come under 

this head; 2 Pet. ili. 4 also is of a different nature. On Matt. 

540 v. 18 there may be a difference of opinion, inasmuch as wavra in 

hed the last clause may be either referred to the law (Olsh., Mey.), or 

explained with Fr. universally: donec omnia (quae mente fingere 
queas) evenerint. The latter, however, is not very plausible. 

7. We subjoin now several other passages in which, although 

from of old N. T. expositors have been accustomed to assume the 

635 existence of pleonasms, neither pleonasm nor redundancy of any 

sort occurs. And first of all, there is a statement to which cur- 

rency has been given even by recent commentators, and which is 

propped up with misunderstood parallels from Greek authors, that 

in the N.T. many verbs, viz. apyecOar, Soxeiy, Oérew, TorApar, 


§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 613 


ddvac@at, when joined with an Infin., are often used pleonastically ; 
Kiihnol on Luke i. 1 represents even émvyeipety to be one of them ; 
cf. Weiske, pleon. under the words. The whole rule is founded 
in error. In the first place | 

a. With regard to Luke i. 1 éwiyespetv in the clause ézred7rep 
Moro eTEeKXEelpnaoav avatasacPa Sujynow etc., is no more used 
without special meaning than is the Latin aggredi in aggressus 
sum scribere (though even philologers share that view, see Herbst, 
Xen. mem. p. 38, and on the other side, Heind. Plat. soph. p. 450). 
Luther well renders it: s¢ntemal es sich viele unterwunden haben 
(whereas many have taken it upon them) etc. So in all the passages 
from the classics adduced by Kiihnol. 

b. So also toApav (Weiske p. 121 sq.), to undertake something, 
always implies some matter of difficulty or importance, sustinere, 
to take wpon one’s self (Blume, Lycurg. p. 89), Rom. v. 7; 1 Cor. 
vi. 1. In Jno. xxi. 12, however, it simply means audere, make 
bold to; and itis only respecting the ground of their not venturing 


to interrogate Jesus that doubt may be entertained. The assertion 570 
of Markland, Lys. p. 159 ed. Taylor, ought not to have misled ™ 


any expositor. 

e. As to doxety cf. Fr. Matt. iii. 9 and the earlier critic J. D. 
Michaelis in the Noy. Miscell. Lips. IV. 45. In 1 Cor. x. 12 6 
 Sox@v éotavas is obviously, he that thinketh he standeth, cf. Gal. vi. 3. 
In Mark x. 42 of doxodvtes dpyew Tov €Pvav means, they who pass 
for the rulers of the nations, are recognized as such (similar are 
Gal. ii. 9; Susann. 5; Joseph. antt. 19, 6,3. The parallel passage 
Matt. xx. 25 has merely of dpyovtes). Luke xxii. 24 rig adrév 
SoKet civar pelfwov quis videatur habere (habiturus esse) princi- 
patum, who was to be judged to have the pre-eminence (over the 
rest) ; the matter is still future and so’ merely an object of con- 
jectural judgment. 1 Cor. xi. 16 ef ris Soxet hidrdverxos eivar if 
any one thinks (it allowable) to be contentious, or (Mey. and 
de Wette) 7f any one seems to be contentious, is an urbane ex- 
pression. Luke viii. 18 6 doce? éyecv what he thinks he has. On 
1 Cor. iii. 18; vii. 40; viii.2; xiv.37; Heb. iv. 1 (where Bohme 
regards doxe? as used elegantius, while Kiihnél and Bleek judge 


* 


more correctly) no remark is required. Cf. in general, Bornem. 635 


schol. p. 52 sq. 

d. Most of the passages in the Gospels where critics have con- 
sidered dpxec@as as pleonastic (cf. too Valcken. Selecta I. 87), 
have been correctly explained by Fr. Mtth. p. 5389 sq. cf p. 766. 


541 
6th ed. 


DL 
Tth ed. 


614 § 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 


In regard to Luke iii. 8 Bengel hints at the truth: omnem excusa- 
tionis etiam conatum praecidit. In particular, it is quite absurd 
to regard this verb as redundant in Luke xii. 45; xxi. 28; 2 Cor. 
iii. 1. In Jno. xiii. 5 jpEato indicates the commencement of the 
action whose completion is related in vs. 12. Acts xxvii. 35 is 
explained by vs. 86: Paul’s apyeo@at éo@tey was an invitation to 
the rest to do the same. In Acts xi. 15 Kiihnol adduces as a 
reason why apfac@ar dadeiv must be equivalent to Aareiy: ex 
x. 43 patet, Petrum jam multa de rel. chr. disseruisse etc. But 
apyerGat Xan. primarily designates only the commencement of the 
discourse, which for that very reason has not yet been completed 
(Peter intended to continue to speak, x. 44 é7s XadovyTos 70d II.). 
But why this commencement is to be referred solely to the first 
six or eight words is not apparent. Moreover, it must not be 
overlooked that év 7@ apEac@al pe Aadety in an address, Acts Xxi., 
is stronger, as if: scarcely had I uttered a few words, when ete. 
In Acts xviii. 26 #p£Eato is to be connected with dxovaavtes dé abtod 
etc. following. On Acts ii.4 see Meyer. Likewise in Acts xxiv. 2 
the discourse of Tertullus, which to judge from the introduction 
vs. 3 was undoubtedly intended to be of greater length, probably 
was interrupted by the corroboration of the Jews vs. 9, and Paul 
himself broke in immediately after ; or vs. 2 is to be taken thus: 
as soon as he was called, Tertullus beyan etc. (began his dis- 
course forthwith). | 

e. In regard to @érev (Gataker, Mr. Ant. 10, 8) in Jno. v. 35, 
see Liucke’s careful examination of the subject. More plausible 
is 2 Tim. ili. 12 wavtes of O€XNOVTES EvcEBas Giv ev Xptoro. 
But the meaning of these words is: all who determine, who are 
minded, to live piously etc. In Heb. xiii. 18 the import of @éXovTes 
is obvious. Jno. vii. 17.was correctly understood by Kuhndl. 
And in Jno. vi. 21 that expositor has rejected Bolten’s arbitrary 
explanation ; a difference between it and Mark vi. 51 will have to 
be acknowledged. In 1 Cor. x. 27 cal 0éXeTe wopevecOar is: and 
you are willing, decide, to go (instead of declining the invitation ). 
On 1 Pet. iii. 10 see Huther. 

f. In opposition to Kiihnél, who considers dvvac@as in Matt. 
ix. 15 as pleonastic, see Fr. By BCrus. it is erroneously made 


637 to signify be allowed or desire. Still less should the authoritative 


word redundat mislead us in Luke xvi. 2 and Jno. vii. 7. In the 
latter passage, in particular, there is obviously an intended 
difference between dvvatas prcety and pucet. 


§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 615 


Among nouns erroneously supposed to be sometimes used pleonastically, 
must be specially mentioned épyov when followed by a Genitive (Boisson. 
Nicet. p. 59) e.g. Rom. ii. 15 épyov vomov, Eph. iv. 12; 1 Thess. i. 3 (see 
Koppe) ; see in opposition Fr. on Rom. as above. In 1 Thess., as above, 
the very parallelism of ¢pyov tis tictews With Kézos THs &yarns forbids our 
taking épyov as a pleonasm; see de Wette in loc. The correct view of 
Eph., as above, has already been given by Flatt. From the Greek 
authors, also, no instance of ¢pyov as a pleonasm can be adduced. In 
Polyaen. 1, 17 épyov rod Aoyiov undoubtedly means the matter of the oracle, 
the deed foretold in the oracle. In Diog. L. prooem. 1 76 ris frdocodias 
épyov is the occupation of philosophizing, the cultivation of philosophy, cf. 542 
just afterwards apgéar dirocodias (in Latin cf. virtutis opus Curt. 8, 14, 37, 6th ed. 
proditionis opus Petr. fragm. 28, 5), not precisely the fabric, system, of 
philosophy. Xpjya is different from épyov, and even xypjya with a Genitive 
is not properly a pleonasm, see Passow under the word. As to ovopa 
(very frequently regarded as pleonastic, see Kiihnél on Jno. p. 133) Wahl 
has already given the true view (cf. vy. Hengel, Philipp. p. 160), see also 
my Simon. lexic. Hebr. under nw; yet this word certainly requires a more 
precise handling than it has yet received in N. T. Lexicons. (As toa 
periphrastic use of ovowa in Greek poets, see Mtth. 965.) In Col. ii. 16 
€V PEPEL EopTHs 7) voupyvias 7) caBBarwv is no more pleonastic than in 
_ respect (or in the matter) of holidays, new moons, etc. Lastly, in Rom. 
vi. 6 cpa rHs duaprias is a single composite idea, the body of sin, i.e. the 
- (human) body; respecting the relation of which to sin no reader of Paul’s 
epistles can be at any loss. See above, p. 188. 


8. Nearly all the earlier expositors asserted, that by a sort of 
half pleonasm KaXeic@ar is used for eivar (Graev. lection. Hesiod. 
p. 22; Porson, Eurip. Hippol. v. 2; Blomfield, Aesch. Pers. p. 128 ; 
on the other hand, Ellendt, lexic. Soph. I. 912), in which use at 
the same time there was thought to be a Hebraism (4ps, esse).: 
But Bretschn. lex. man. p. 209 sets the matter right by saying: 
swum videlicet ex aliorwm sententia. Cf. van Hengel, Cor. p. 53 sq. 572 
As to xnp2 see my Simon. lex. p. 867. In the N.T. xaretoOar isbn 
always signifies to be named, to be called, Jas. ii. 23; Matt. v. 19; 
xxi. 13, especially in reference to names of honor, which denote 
the possession of a certain dignity, Matt. v.9; Lukei. 76; 1 Jno. 
ili. 1; Rom.ix.26. It is used even as antithetical to eivas (to be), 688 
1 Cor. xv. 9 (even so much as to bear the name of an apostle), 
Luke xv. 19. Nor can dvoydfecba. Rom. xv. 20 (1 Cor. v. 1) ; 
Eph. i. 21; iii. 15; v. 8 be weakened down to a mere esse; (it 
is even emphatic, as dé in the last passage shows).! It is an 


1 The passages adduced by Schwarz, Comment. p. 719sq., from Greek authors to 


548 
Gih ed, 


573 
7th ed. 


639 


616 § 65. REDUNDANT SENTENCES. 


utter perversion when many expositors render even Heb. xi. 18 
é€v 'Icadx krnOynoerat cov oméppa: existet tibi posteritas ; (Schulz, 
too, very inaccurately translates it: thow wilt receive offspring). 
Evpicxec@ar also is said (see Pott on 1 Cor. iv. 2; ef. the 
annotators on Plut. educ. 18, 5), like xxe: (cf. on the other hand 
my Simonis p. 575), often to be used instead of eivav. But these 
two verbs are always distinguished from each other by this, that 
evat denotes the quality of a thing in itself, while etiploxec@at 
denotes that quality as found, discovered, recognized, in the subject. 
Matt. i. 18 evpé0n év yaortpi éyovoa it proved (it appeared) that 
she was with child (jv év yaotpi éyovca might have been previously 
said), Luke xvii. 18 ody etpéOncav vrroctpéyravtes Sobvar So€av TO 
Oe@® ef 1) 0 AddAoYer?IS OUTOS; were none found (as it were, did 
none show themselves) who returned ? Acts vill. 40 idrurzros 
eupéOn eis "Alwrov Philip was found (cf. rvedpa xupiov ipirace Tov 
ir. vs. 89) at Ashdod (properly, transported to Ashdod, by the 
mvevua Kup. that carried him away), Rom. vii. 10 evpéOy pou 7 
€vTOA?) 1) Es Sony attn eis Odvatov it proved, appeared (from Paul’s 
personal experience vss. 8-10) that the commandment for life had 
become to me a commandment for death, Gal. ii. 17 a dé... 
etpeOnwev Kal avTol apaptorot but if we ourselves were found sinners 
(before God and man), 1 Cor. iv. 2; 2 Cor. v.38; Phil. iii. 9; 
Rey. xii. 8 ovd€ témos ebpéOn aitay ete ev TH ovpav@ neither was 
their place any more found (any more to be seen) in heaven, as 
we say: every trace of them was blotted out (cf. Rev. xvi. 20 ; 
xviii. 21; xx. 11), 1 Pet. ii. 22 od5é ebpéOn Soros ev TO oTdpare 
avtov nor was guile found in his mouth, no guile could be detected 
in his words (Rey. xiv. 5). Phil. ii. T was correctly rendered by 
Luther. The Greek passages adduced as parallel, by Kypke I. 2; 
Palairet p. 198; Schwarz et al., prove nothing. In Mr. Anton. 
9,9 76 cuvaywyov ev TO KpelTTove EemruTELVomevoy evpioxeTo ete. 
evpioxowat retains its proper meaning: was found. Hierocl. in 
carm. Pythag. p. 88 ed. Lond. dpy7 pev tév apetav 1 Ppovnats 
eupicxetat is: prudentia virtutum principium esse deprehenditur, 
i.e. it 1s found by the considerate that etc. ; Eurip. Iph. Taur. 777 
(766) vob mor 6v? evpryyeAa; ubi tandem esse deprehendimur 
(deprehensi sumus) ? whither does it turn out that we have wan- 
dered? In Joseph. antt. 17 (not 7), 5, 8 evpicx. refers to those 
very persons in whose opinion Herod wished to avoid standing 


prove that carcioOau or dvoudeoOa is used for efya:, dispose of themselves for an atten- 
tive reader. The attempt to take nominari for esse in Cic. Flacc. 27 is truly ridiculous. 


§ 65, REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 617 


unfavorably. Cf. also Soph. Trach. 410; Aj. 1114 (1111); Diod. 
Sic. 8, 39; 19, 94; Athen. I. 331; Schweigh. Philostr. Apoll. 7, 
11; Alciphr. 1,30. In Ignat.ad Rom. 3 réyerOas yprotvavoy and 
evpicxecOat xpiotiavoy are contrasted.1 

9. Among the particles, ws in particular has frequently been 
regarded as pleonastic, as in 2 Pet. i. 3 os ravta nyiv ths Oelas 
duvdpews avTov ... dedwpnuévns. But os combined with the par- 
ticiple in the construction of the Gen. absol. imparts to the verbal 
notion the impress of subjectiveness, of a persuasion or purpose. 
Hence the preceding passage, taken in connection with vs. 5, 
must be rendered: perswaded (reflecting) that the divine power 
has bestowed on us all things, ... earnestly endeavor etc., nryovpevot, 
bre 1) Oela Sdvapmis ... Seddpnrat (1 Cor. iv. 18), ef. Xen. C. 3, 3,4 
as eipnvns ovens on the understanding of there being peace, 3, 1, 9 
@s TAANOH Epodvtos assured that I am telling the truth, cf. 6,1, 37 ; 
Mem. 1, 6, 5; Strabo 9, 401 ; Xen. Eph. 4, 2; Dion. Hal. III. 1925 ; 544 
see Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 320; Loesner, obs. p. 483; Lob. Soph. Aj. "he 
p- 203; Fr. Rom. II. 360. (In Greek authors this particle is thus 
connected also with the Acc. absol., e.g. Xen. C. 1, 4, 21; An. 7, 
1,40.) ‘Ms is likewise, with the same import, put before a Dative 
governed by a verb, Acts iii. 12 %) nyiv ti atevifere ws idia dvvaper 

. wevTronKoow etc. In Rom. xv. 15 ws éravayimrjckar, the parti- 
cle ws means as (of the characteristic) : as one who reminds you 
according to the grace of God. 


In Rom. ix. 32 drt od« é« rictews, GAN ds €& Eprywv vopov, the expression 
€k TLOTEWS denotes the objective standard ; ds é& é epyov, the purely imagi- 
nary. 9 Cor. xiil. 7; Jno. vii. 10; Philem. 14 also are to be traced back 
to acomparison. And Matt. Vii. 29 jv diddoKxwv ds eovotay exwv, Jno. i. 14 
ddfav os povoyevols mapa matpds, mean simply: as one having authority, 
as of the only begotten etc., and even in these instances the particle does 
not of itself indicate what exists revera, though, if we regard the sense, 640 
this idea is implied in the comparison (exactly as, altogether as, like, i.e. 
the true, perfect glory of the Son of God, ete.). 

In reference to as éwt Acts xvii. 14 we have to remark, that és joined 
to a preposition of direction (éri, zpés, cis) expresses either the actual 574 
purpose of taking a certain direction, or even the mere pretence or Tthed. 
assumed appearance of doing so, Kiihner II. 280. In the preceding 
passage, Beza, Grotius, and others have understood it in the latter sense ; 


1'The same applies to the Latin invenire (e.g. Cic. Lael. 12, 42), which Schwarz in 
the like clumsy way represents as equivalent to esse. Even in Malalas eépicxeo@a, in 
most passages, still retains clearly the signification of inveniri, e.g. 14 p. 372. So also 
in Theophan. ; see the Index in the Bonn edition. 
78 


618 § 65, REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 


the former interpretation, however, is simpler and more suited to the 
context. As parallel instances, cf. Thuc. 5, 3; 6, 61; Xen. An. 1, 9, 23; 
7,7, 55; Diod. S. 14, 102; Polyb. 5, 70, 3; Arrian. Al. 2, 17, 2; 3, 18, 
14. See besides, Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. Il. 1004. Also in os ozs, in im- 
mediate succession! (as it were, as that), ws properly indicates that the 
statement introduced by ore is a mere report, an alien or even pretended 
opinion, Isocr. Busir. argum. p. 520 xaryydpouv abrod Os oT Kava Sapone 
cispépet. So also 2 Thess. ii. 2 eis 70 py carevOjvar duds ... pare d1a. Adyou 
pnre Ov erioToANs...@s OTl evéeoTyKEv 7 NEpa Tov kupiov. In 2 Cor. xi. 21, 
likewise, this import of s is perceptible (see Mey. in loc.), and in 2 Cor. 
v. 19, if the statement be regarded as the substance of the dvaxovia tis 
katadAayns conferred. In the earlier authors, too, ds or is thus used 
Xen. H. 3, 2,14; Dion. H. III.17762 Among the later (Theodoret. epp. 
p- 1294) see Thilo, Act. Thom. p. 10 sq. and Lehrs de Aristarch. p. 34. 
Similar, but decidedly pleonastic, is os Wa in Byzantine writers, as in 
Duce. 8. p. 31, 127 ; Jo. Canan. p. 467, 470 f. Still more strange is iv’ dzws 
Constant. Man. p. 62; Geo. Acropol. p. 62. (As to the earlier as ofoy, 
see Bast, ep. crit. p. 43 ; Hm. opuse. I. 219 sq.) 

545  Ovrws also has been said to be redundant in Jno. iv.*6 (Kiihnél): 6 © 

6th ed. “Incods Kexomiakos €k THs Sdouropias exabelero ovTws. But this adverb is 
frequently employed thus after a participle to repeat the participial notion : 
wearred with the journey, sat down thus (sic ut erat, in consequence of this 
“fatigue), Xen. A. 4, 5,29; C. 5, 2,63; 7, 5,71; Hellen. 7,4, 20 seems 
Al. 5, 27,13; Ellendt, Arrian. I. 4. On ovrw at the beginning of an 
apodosis, see § 60, 5 p. 541. 


10. A half pleonasm of a particle is found by Palairet p. 305, 
after Glassius, in Acts xiii. 34 wnxéte pédrXrovta vrroctpédew eis 
dcabOopav, where pnxéte is supposed to stand for the simple p7 
(as Christ had never gone to corruption). But the phrase eis 
diapOopay wvroatpép. denotes, as so early a critic as Bengel per- 

641 ceived, simply to (die and) be buried. The quotation from Aelian. 
12, 52 is of no force ; wnxére there signifies: no longer (as hitherto), 
just like ov«ére in Jno. xxi. 6. Many used to teach a half pleo- 
nastic use of ov«ére also; but likewise erroneously. In Rom. 
vil. 17 vuvt 5€ odKéte eyo Katepyafouat avTo, GAN 1)... auwapria is: 

575 now, however, after having made this observation vs. 14 sqq., dé ts 

the. no longer I that do the evil, i.e. 1 can no longer consider myself 
the primary cause of it, cf. vs. 20. Rom. xi. 6 et 6€ ydputt, odKére 


1Jn Aristot. Pol. 3, 7 és 671 is used differently ; that is, ds corresponds to an ante- 


cedent o¥Tws. 
2 For separated, so that 67: in the course of the sentence resumes és, both particles 
were used at an early period, Schoem. Isae. p. 294 ; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 566. 


bd 


§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 619 


€& epywr is: if by grace, then (it is) no more (further) of works, 
i.e. the latter thought is annihilated by the former, it can no longer 
éxist.. Rom. xiv. 13,15; 2 Cor. i. 28; Gal. ii. 20; iii. 18 are 
plain. In Jno. iv. 42 ov«ére derives elucidation from vs. 41, 
where ova Tov AOyoy avTov is antithetical to dia Tov Aoyov THs 
yuvaixes vs. 89; two motives for mucrevew are distinguished, 
an earlier anda later. As to Jno. xv. 15 see Liicke. Moreover, 
Xen. A. 1, 10, 12 cannot be adduced in support of such a use of 
ovxétt, and still less (unxers) Xen. Eph. 1, 13 (in Paus. 8, 28, 2 
recent editors give ovx éo71, yet see Siebelis in loc.). Cf. also 
Lucian. Parasit. 12; Sext. Emp. Math. 2,47; Arrian. Epict. 3, 
22,86. Likewise on Aelian. Anim. 4,3 Jacobs admits that ov«érs 
is used for the simple negation paullo majore cum vi. 


§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES 
(BREVILOQUENCE, CONSTRUCTIO PRAEGNANS, ATTRACTION, 
ETC.). 


1. The inherent predilection of the Greeks for terseness and 
compactness of discourse exhibits itself even in prose in various 
modes of expression, some of which are to be found in the N. T. 
They all, however, agree in this, that an intermediate member 
not absolutely essential to the sense is omitted, and the other 
parts of the sentence are drawn together into one compound whole. 
Cf. Mtth. 1533 ff; Doederlein, de brachylogia serm. gr. et lat. 
Erlang. 1831. 4to. This breviloquence is akin to ellipsis, yet 
different from it, inasmuch as in an elliptical sentence the gram- 
matical structure always indicates the omission of a definite 
individual word, while in breviloquence the break is always 
covered up by the structure. 

To breviloquence belong the following cases: 

a. Toa protasis is joined an apodosis without a direct connection: 
Rom. xi. 18 ef 6€ katakavyacat, ov ov thy pifav Baorakers, adda 1) 
pita oé but if thow... then know or reflect that, not thou, ete. 
1 Cor. xi. 16. The full structure would be: ic@e (dtavood), ore 
ov av etc.; cf. Clem. ad Cor. I. 55. The sentence could not be 
called elliptical unless it ran thus: ef 8 Katax., OTe ov av ete. ; 
then 67¢ would point to an actually omitted word, such as, know 
or consider. In like manner, in Latif, scito is often suppressed 
between the protasis and the apodosis, Cic. or. 2, 12, 51. Cf. also 
1 Jno. v. 9et TH paptuplav Thy avOpoTav NapBavopev, ) apTupia 


' 


546 
6th ed, 


642 


576 
7th ed, 


648 


547 
6th ed. 


620 § 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 


Tov Geod pelfwv éoriv, we must consider that the testimony of God 
etc., or, we must much more receive the testimony of God, which 
etc.; 1 Cor. ix.17. (in Rom. ii. 14, however (Fr.), the protasis 
and the apodosis are connected without any difficulty.) In Matt. 
ix. 6 wa 6€ etdfnTe, OTL eEovciav Eyer 0 vids Tod avOperrou ... (TOTE 
Eyes TH TaparvtiK@) eyepGels apov cov THY Krivnv, where the 
words inserted by the Evangelist do not belong to the structure 
of the sentence: that ye may know... stand thou up and take etc., 
ie. the paralytic shall at my command immediately rise up, I 
command the paralytic: Stand up etc. (analogous to this are the 
constructions so frequent in the orators, such as Dem. cor. 329 c. 
iva Tolvuy elonte, OTL avTOS for wapTupEl ... AaB@v avayvwbs TO 
Widicpa bdrov, see Kypke and Fr. in loc.). Jno. ix. 36 kal ris 
€oTl, KUpte, va TiaTevow eis avtov; sc. L wish to know, in order 
that etc., cf. i. 22. 

A breviloquence similar to that in sentences with wa takes place when 
through dA’ iva an event is referred to a prophetic prediction, as in Jno. 
xv. 25; xiii. 18; Mark xiv. 49; cf. 1 Cor. ii. 9. Yet in such passages 
what is wanting before va may usually be supplied from the preceding 
context, see Fr. exc. 1. ad Matt. p. 841. 

b. To a general predicate, the appropriate verb of which is 
omitted, a special verb (with its predicate) is directly annexed : 
Phil. iii. 13 f. éy@ éwavtov od Noyifopar KaTeirndhevat, Ev O€, TA ev 
omicw értNavOavopevos, Tots 6é... KaTa oKoTrOV di@kw etc. for év dé 
Tom, KaTa cKoTrov Siok, Cf. Liv. 35, 11 in eos se impetum facturum 
et nihil prius (facturum), quam flammam tectis injecturum. 
2 Cor. vi. 13 tv S86 adtany avtiptcOlayv... wrAatUvOnTe Kab 
vets for ro Sé adto 6 éotw avtiuwoia etc. see Fr. diss. in 2 Cor. 
IJ. 115; as tothe Acc., however, cf. Hm. opusc.J.168sq. Similar 
is Jude 5 dtu 6 Kbpios Nady ex yhs AiyiTTov cwoas TO SEevTEpPoOP 
TOUS pn TLoTevcavtas amwwdecev. Here the verb to be connected 
with zo devr. would properly have been ov« éswoe (aAXa etc.): 
the Lord, after having delivered them, did, on a second occasion 
(when they were in need of his helping grace), refuse them his 
delivering grace and destroy them etc. Cf. further Rom. xi. 23 
duvatos éotw 6 Beds madw éyKxevtpicat avtovs. The avrot are 
those that grew upon the stock cata dvow ; they therefore cannot 
be ingrafted on the stock again. In strictness the language ought 
to run: again to unite theth to the stock, viz. by ingrafting. 


On the other hand, Col. iii. 25 6 dduxv Koptetrae 6 Hdiknoe could hardly 
in accordance with the genius of the Greek language be regarded as 


§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 621 


brachylogical. It denotes (according to the signification of Kxopifec@ar) 
pretty nearly: he will reap the wrong; not that he will suffer the same 
wrong which he has committed, but its fruits, the reward of it, the wrong 

in the form of penalty. Cf. Eph. vi. 8. Similar to this are Jno. xii. 5 

81a ti TodTo TO pvpov ovk erpayn... Kat €dd0n TTwxots ; —- and (the proceeds) 577 
given to the poor (strictly, and in the form of money arising from the sale ith ed 
given to the poor), and 1 Cor. xv. 37. 


ce. Acts i. 1 ay jpEato o ‘Inaods qrrovety Te Kai didacKeEL aypt 1s 
nuépas etc., i.e. what Jesus began, and consequently continued, 
to do and to teach until the day etc. (vs. 227); much like Luke 
XXill. 5 duddoxwv Kal’ Orns THs Lovdalas, apEdpwevos aro THs Tare 
Aalas Ews Hbe beginning from Galilee and continuing to this place, 
and Matt. xx. 8; Jno. vill. 9; Strabo 12, 541. The construction 
proposed for these last passages by Fr.: duddcnwv Ews wde, apEdp., 
amo T. Tandon. (Lucian. somn. 15), is too artificial. The assertion 
of Valckenaer, however, and Kihndl, that in Acts i. 1 dpyec@as is 
pleonastic, seems to be a mere makeshift. 

2. Brachylogy appears with especial frequency, and was noticed 
by the ancient grammarians, 

d. in what is called constructio praegnans (which connects a 
preposition with a verb that includes another as consecutive) ; as 
2 Tim. iv. 18 cace: els tiv Bacirelav will save me into his kingdom, 
1.e. save me, translating me into etc. Acts xxiii. 24; 1 Pet. ili. 20 
(Her. 7, 230; Xen. A. 2, 8,11; Polyb. 8,11; Lucian. asin. 56 
etc., cf. my 5th comment. de verb. compos. p. 9), 2 Tim. li. 26 
avavypwow &x THs Tod dia80rov rrayidos, Matt. v. 22 évoyos érras 
eis THY yéevvay (§ 31, 5 p. 213), Rom. viii. 21 éXevPepwOnzerae a7 © 
THs Sovrelas THs POopas eis THY EdevOepiav THs do&ns etc. (see Fr. 
in loc.), Acts v. 387 améotnce adv tkavov oTicw avTod, xx. 30; 
2 Cor. xi. 3 pas... hOaph Ta vonpata buoy ard THs aTAOTNTOS, 
Acts viii. 40 Bir. evpéOn eis” ACwrov (Rom. vii. 10). See, further, 
Acts xxiii. 11; Luke iv. 38; xviii. 3; Gal. v.4; Rom. vii. 2; 
Peeraievae2s) ; xvi. 20; 1 Cor, xii. 13 3; xv.54; 2Cor.x.5; Heb. 644 
li. 8; x. 22; Eph. ii. 15; 1Tim.v.15; 1 Pet. iii.10. According 
to some, Heb. v. 7 also comes under this head, see Bleek in loc. 
(Ps. xxii. 22 Hebr.; Ps. cxvii. 5 Sept.); with more certainty 
Mark vii. 41 does. This species of conciseness occurs frequently 


1 The passage must be rendered: (on returning) from the market (like Arrian. Epict. 
8,19, 5 dv wh ebpwuer gayeiv ex Badraveton), if they have not washed themselves, they 
eat not. To refer Barricwvta to the food (as Kiihnil does), would be opposed not so 
much by the usus loquendi (for Bamriouds, derived from Banri¢., is in vs. 4 obviously 


o 


§22, § 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 


548 in Greek prose, cf. Markland, Eurip. suppl. 1205; Stallb. Plat. 

fthel. Huthyphr. p. 60; Poppo, Thue. I. I. 292sq.; on the Hebr., how- 
ever, see Ewald 8. 620. Expressions such as xpvarew or KXelew 
Te amo Twos (1 Jno. ill. 17), weravoety aro Ths Kalas (Acts viii. 22) 

578 or €« Tov épyov etc. (Rev. ix. 20f.; xvi. 11), dmo®Brérew and 

ithed. Ghopav eis Heb. xi. 26; xii. 2, waparauBdvew eis Matt. iv. 5, 
achariver@ar tovs Todas eis TO EUNov (Acts xvi. 24), cuvyKreleww 
Tous Tavtas eis amreiGevav (Rom. xi. 82), originate in like manner 
from a constructio praegnans, though by us it is scarcely felt. 
On Barrifav twa eis twa, see Fr. Rom. I. 359. In general, cf. 
further Fr. Mr. p. 522, also § 50, 4 p. 413 sq. 

e. in what is called Zeugma (synizesis), when two nouns are 
construed with a single verb, though only one of them, the first, 
directly suits it (ef. Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 429.sq.): 1 Cor. iii. 2 yada 
vmas eTrOTLca, OV Bp@pa, where erotica suits yada only, and for 
Apaua we must educe from this verb the idea to feed, cf. Acta 
apocr. p. 60; Luke i. 64 ave@y@n To cTopma avTod ... Kal ) yAOooa 
avtov, where properly €Av@y (cf. Mark vii. 85) must be understood 
for yA@ooa (and a few authorities have it), see Raphel in loc.? 
In 1 Tim. iv. 8 kwdrvdvt@v yapmetv, atréyer@at Bowparwr, the word 
KeXevovtwy (or with the Scholiast in Matthaei etsyyoupévwy) must 
be deduced from kon. (i.q. KeAevewv yn) for the latter Inf.; [in the 
same way in 1 Thess. ii. 8 the simple verb dodvac from the foregoing 
compound peradodvat must be supplied with ada Kat Tas éavTov 
wuxas]. And lastly, 1 Cor. xiv. 84. Cf. Soph. Oed. R. 242; 
Eurip. Phoen. 1223; Plat. rep. 2.374 b. (yet see Stallb. in loc.) ; 

645 Protag. p. 827 c. ; Demosth. cor. § 55, see Dissen in loc. ; Arrian. 
Al. 7,15, 5. In Greek authors, sometimes from the first verb 
must be deduced one of exactly the opposite import for the second 
member of the sentence, Kiihner II. 604; Stallb. Plat. Cratyl. 
p- 169. This was applied to Jas. i. 9,10, where it was thought 
Tamewovobw (or aicyurvésOw)? was to be understood with o dé 


applied to things), or by the Mid. voice, for this might signify wash for themselves, as 
by the circumstance that in this way a very ordinary thought, and an unexpected one 
in the connection, is introduced. For, the washing of articles of food brought from 
the market was not a mere precept of Pharisaism, but a proceeding required by the 
nature of the case and by the spirit of the Mosaic laws concerning purification. 

1'That avolyew yA@ooay could be employed in plain prose is not proved by what 
has been adduced by Segaar in loc. We may remark also, in passing, that the zeugma 
usually quoted from Her. 4, 106 disappears in the edition by Schweighius. in which 
the text is: éoO7Ta 5& opéovor... yA@ooay 5 idinv Exovcg.. As, however, there is 
no MS. authority for xovo:, later editors have with reason declined to follow him. 

2 The passage quoted by Hottinger in loc. from Plat. rep. 2, 367d. runs as follows, 


§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 623 


mwAovctos. But this is unnecessary ; and the thought is finer if 
kavydc@w is made to apply also to the second member, see my 
Obsery. in ep. Jac. p.6. On 1 Cor. vii. 19 see above, § 64, 1 p. 583. 
For examples of Greek and Latin zeugmata, see d’Orville, Charit. 
p. 440 sq.; Wyttenb. Plut. moral. I. 189 sq. ed. Lips. ; Schaef. 
Dion. p. 105; Engelhardt, Plat. apol. p. 221; Bremi, exc. 3 ad 
Lys.; Vle. Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. p. 182; Funkhaenel, Demosth. 
Androt. p. 70; Hand, lat. Styl. p. 424 f. 


f. in comparisons (Jacobs, Anthol. pal. III. 63, 494; Achill. 549 
Tat. p. T47; Fr. Mr. p. 147), i.e. with the Comparative (cf. § 36, ae 


5 p. 245) and in constructions with adjectives of resemblance, e.g. 


Rey. xiii. 11 etye xépata S00 bmwora adpvi@ (properly apyviov 579 
xépaot),) as in Iliad. 17, 51 xéuae Xaplrecow potas, Wisd. ii. 15 ; Nhe 


) 


vii. 8; 2 Pet. i. 1 tots tootipov apiv Nayovor tictw (for icdT. TH. 


jpovtmiore), Jude 7. Of. also Xen. Cyr. 5,1, 3 duotav tats SovAats 
eixe THY EcOATa, 6,1, 50 dpyata ek Tod immiKod Tov EavTOD Gpora 
éxetv@ (i.e. Tots éxetvov), liad. 1, 163 od pév coi rote icov éyw 
yépas (i.e. icov Tt o@), Arrian. Epict. 1, 14,11; Mtth. 1016. 
This breviloquence in comparisons is, however, in the Greek 
authors much more diversified still, see Xen. Cyr. 5,4,6; 2,1,15; 
Hier. 1, 88 ; Isocr. Evag. c.14; Diod. S. 8,18; Ael. anim. 4, 21; 
Dion. H.I.111; see Wyttenb. Plut. Mor. I. 480sq.; Schaef. Apollon. 
-Rhod. Il. 164; melet. p. 57; Demosth. III. 463; Stallb. Plat. 
Protag. p. 153; rep. I. 134, also Heinichen, Euseb. Il. 154. In 
the N. T. under this head come also 1 Jno. iii. 11 f. attn 7) ayyeria 
iW nkovoaTe aT apyis, Wa ayaTauev addjAovS* ov KaOws Kaiv 
éx Tov Tovnpov Hv etc. Strictly, there is nothing to be supplied 
(@uev or troimwev would not suit ov), but the comparison is 
expressed carelessly, and the reader easily sets it to rights for 
himself: that we love each other, not as Cain was of the wicked one 
etc. will, or should, it be with us.? 


Luke xiii. 1 dy ro aia TliAaros quige pera trav Ovordy airay (for pera 


in the recent editions, agreeably to MS. authority : rod’ ody aitd emaiveroy Sixaoovvns, 
& abth 8¢ abthy roy ~xovta ovivnot Kal adtxla BAdmwres; and is thus no longer 
similar. 

1 Rey. ix. 10 probably does not come under this head. The comparing of tails to 
scorpions is nearly in the style of the poet, and is sustained by other passages, see 
vs. 19 and ef. Ziillig in loc. 

2 Cf. Demosth. Mid. p. 415 a. od yap ek moditixis aitlas, ovd’ Ssmep Apioropay amodovs 
Tovs aTEpavous Avge Thy mpoBoAhy not on account of a political offence, and did not like A. 
..- quash the proceeding, i.e. nor acting in the way by which A. quashed the im- 
peachment. In opposition to Reiske, who would here insert 8s, see Spalding in loc. 


646 


624 § 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 


Tov aimatros tav O.?) may also be referred to this head, though not neces- 
sarily ; see Meyer. 


3. g. It may be considered as breviloquence also, when a word 
which should have a clause of its own is directly appended (or 
even prefixed) to a clause as an apposition; e.g. 2 Tim. ii. 14; 
Rom. vill. 8 etc. (see § 59, 9 p. 533) and (according to the usual 
reading) Mark vii. 19 eis tov afedpava exrropeverar, kab apifov 
mavta Ta Bpwpata. Akin to this is the proleptic use of adjectiva 
effectus (in a sort of apposition), as in Soph. Oed. Col. 1202 rév 
cov ASépKT@V OppaTtwov THT@pevos for w@sTe yevécOar ddepKTa. 
This usage is not merely poetic and oratorical, Schaef. Demosth. 
I. 239; V. 641; Erfurdt, Soph. Antig. 786 ; Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 278 ; 
Heller, Soph. Oed. Col. p. 522 sqq., — but is used also in prose, Ast, 
Plat. lege. p.150sq.; Plat. polit. p.592; Vic. Fritzsche, quaestion. 

550 Lucian. p. 89,57; Weber, Demosth. 497. See, in general, Meyer 

. bs de epithet. ornantt. p. 24 and Ahlemeyer Pr. on the poetic prolepsis 

a of the Adject. Paderborn 1827. 4to. From the N.T. might be 
referred to this head, Matt. xii. 13 (7) yelp) amexatectadOn vyins 
(Bornem. schol. p. 39; Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 76; my Simonis 
p. 262), Rom. i. 21 écxotic@n » acvvetos avtav Kapdia, 2 Cor. 
iv. 4 Ocds étUbdAwWoe TA voxpata TOV atiatwyv, 1 Thess. iii. 13 
aotnpliEar Tas Kapdias buav apwépwrrous etc., Phil. ili. 21 pera-- 
TXNMATITEL TO TOMA... nLGV TVUpPophov TH owpare etc. (where 
some Codd. subjoin after av: ets TO yevéoOar adTo), 1 Cor. i. 8. 
This construction, however, is hardly admissible, at least in respect 
to Rom. i. and 2 Cor. iv. In the former passage the import of 
aovvetos (having reference to éewataiwOnocav preceding) is less 
strong than that of cxor(tecOa (as Flatt perceived), and in 2 Cor. 
Paul probably conceives of enlightenment as proceeding from a 
general faith in Christ. Because they did not turn to Christ, but 
at once rejected him, they did not obtain enlightenment. 


With the instances first adduced must be classed also Luke xxiy. 47 

et wabety Xpirrov ... Kal dvacrivar... Kal knpvxPnvar él TO dvopare adtod 

647 peravo.ay, ... dpEdpevov ard ‘TepovcaAjp, where the participle (as frequently 
efov, mapov Vig. p. 329) is used absolutely and impersonally: whilst (so 
that) ¢t was begun, cf. Her. 8, 91 do 8& Tlocevdyiov dds... dpédp. €vov 

amo tavtys péxpt Aiytrrov ... TevTHKOVTA Kal TPLyKOTLA TadAaVTA POpos HV, 

see J. L. Schlosser, vindicat. N. T. locor., quor. integritatem J. Marcland. 
suspectam reddere non dubitavit (Hamb. 1732. 4to.) p. 18sq. This 
English critic (ad Lysiam p. 653, Reiske VI.) wanted to read dépgapever. 

A sort of breviloquence occurs in Acts i. 21 év ravri xpdve, (év) & els- 


§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 625 


HAV cat e&prOev ed’ Huds 6 Kvpios Incods for eisprOe ef)’ Has Kal e&frOe 
ap yov. But such diffuseness would have been intolérable to every 
classic author also, cf. Eurip. Phoen. 536 és otkous eispAOe Kal e&prAP (where 
to be sure the arrangement is more simple) and Valcken. in loc. See 
also Poppo, Thue. I. I. 289. 

Note. In Acts x. 39 there would in like manner be a brachylogy in the 
words kal jets paptupes wavTwyv Gv eéroinoey ..., Ov Kal (the reading 
according to the best authorities [ Cod. Sin. also]) dvethov kpeuacavres ext 
évdov, if the meaning were: we are witnesses of all that he did, also of this, 
that they put him to death. But this acceptation is not necessary. Besides, 
whatever opinion others may hold, xaé here means nothing else than 
etiam (adeo), and the rendering tamen (Kiihn6l) is in this connection 
very doubtful. Likewise Luke xxiv. 21 tpirny rairny tpepay aye onpepor, 
ef. 2 Cor. xii. 14; xiii. 1, could only be regarded as a brachylogy by taking 
German as the standard. In Greek the numeral was considered simply 
as a predicative adjunct, cf. Achill. Tat. 7, 11 Jac. tpirnv ratrnv pépay 
yéeyovey davis, Dion. Hal. IV. 2095 tpiaxoorov eros rotro dvexdpeba ete. 
see Bornem. Luc. p. 161 and on analogous cases Krii. 237. Further, 
there is no brachylogy in 1 Cor. i. 12 exaoros tydv A€yens eyo pév ecipe 
IlavAov, ey dé “AzodXG, eyo 5€ Kyndpa, éyo b€ Xpwrrod. In these four 581 
statements Paul intended to comprehend all the declarations current in Tth ed 
the church respecting religious partisanship ; each uses one of the following 551 
expressions. Cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 26. Lastly, 1 Cor. vi. 11 ratrd rwes Fyre, 6th ef. 
rightly understood, contains no brachylogy, see § 58, 3 p. 5138. 

4. But the Greek language has a method of blending sentences 
and parts of sentences so as to give discourse still greater com- 
pactness and conciseness, viz. by means of what is called Aétraction 
(Bttm. Gr. § 538, 1), which can be termed a species of brachylogy 
only under one point of view. The name of Attraction, as is well 
known, has been given by modern grammarians to that mode of 
expression by means of which two portions of discourse (especially 
clauses), logically (in sense) connected, are also grammatically 
(formally) blended. A word (or assemblage of words), which 
properly belongs to but one of these portions (clauses), is gram- 648 
matically extended to the other, and so applies to both at once 
(to the one clause, logically, and to the other, grammatically), as 
urbem, quam statwo, vestra est; where urbs properly belongs to 
vestra est (for there are two propositions: wrbs vestra est, and 
quam statuo), but is attracted by the relative clause and incorpo- 
rated into it, so as now to belong to both clauses, logically to vestra 
est, and grammatically to quam statuo. See Hm. Vig. p. 891 sqq.,} 

1 Hm, as above: Est attractio in eo posita, si quid eo, quod simul ad duas orationis 


partes refertur, ad quarum alteram non recte refertur, ambas in unam conjungit. Cf. 
79 


082 


Tth ed. 


ie 
6th ed, 


649 


626 § 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 


in particular G. T. A. Kriiger, gramm. Untersuch. 3 Theil. The 
copious diversity of this mode of expression encountered in Greek 
authors, does not, indeed, occur in the N. T.; yet even there we 
find not a few instances of attraction which were not recognized 
as such by the earlier expositors, and which, to say the least, 
created no small difficulty in interpretation (see e.g. W. Bowyer, 
Conjectur. I. 147). 

5. Attraction in general, so far as it affects the connection of 
sentences or clauses, may be reduced to three principal sorts: 
Hither, 1. something is attracted from the dependent by the prin- 
cipal clause; or, 2. the principal clause transfers something to 
the dependent (accessory) clause ; or, 8. two clauses, predicated 
of one and the same subject, are blended into one. 

The 1st sort comprehends such constructions as the following : 

a. 1 Cor. xvi. 15 oldate tiv olkiav Stepava btu éotly atrapyy 
Ths Ayaias, Acts ix. 20 éxjpuccev tov “Incodv bre obtds éotuv 6 vids 
Tov Oecd. This is very frequent, when objective clauses follow a 
verb of observing, knowing, showing, or declaring, as Mark xi. 32; 
xii. 34; Acts iii. 10; iv. 18; xii. 82; xv.380; xvi. Oey 
1 Cor. ii. 20; xiv. 37;.2 Cor. xii, 8f; 1 Thess. 11.) te) 
li. 4; Jno. iv. 85; v. 42; vii. 27; viii. 54 (Arrian. Al. 7, 15, 7); 
xi. 31; Rev. xvii, 8 (Gen. i.4; 1 Macc. xiii. 53; 2 Meeovaie 
1 Kings y. 8; xi. 29, etc.). Also when interrogative clauses follow, 
as Luke iv. 34 oida ce, tis et, Mark i. 24 (see Heupel and Fr. in 
loc. ; Boissonade, Philostr. epp. p. 143), Luke xix. 8 ideiv tov’ Inaod», 
tis éott, cf. Schaef. ind. Aesop. p. 127;1 Jno. vii. 27 rourop 
oldayev, TOOEV é€otiv (Kypke in loc.), Acts xv. 36 émuckepapueba 
Tovs adedhovs ... Tas Exovot, 2 Cor. xii. 5; Jno. xiii. 28 
(Achill. Tat. 1,19; Theophr. char. 21; Philostr. ep. 64). And 
the same form of anticipation occurs from clauses with iva, u% ete. 
Col. iv. 17 rere thy Staxoviav, iva avtiv wrnpots, Rev. ili. 9 trouow 
avtous, iva HEwor, Gal. vi. 1 cxom@yv ceavtov, pu) Kal od TrecpacOAs, 
iv. 11 doBodpar twas, pjmws eixh Kexorriaxa eis vuds (cf. Diod. 8. 
4,40 rov aderdov evraPeicOat, prrote ... eniOnrar 7H Bacrreiq, 
Soph. Oed. R. 760 déd0cn’ euavrov ... pi) TOAN ayav cipnuév 7 por, 
Thue. 3, 53; Ignat. ad Rom. I. goBodpar thy tuav ayarnv, ph) 
avTy ge adiucnon, Varro R. R. 38, 10,6; Caes. b. gall. 1, 39; ef. 
Kri. 8.164 f.). In the Passive 1 Cor. xv. 12 Xpucrés xnptooera 


Kriig. as above, 8. 39f. Many draw a distinction between assimilation and attraction, 
cf. Hand, Lat. Styl. 376 ff. | 
11 Cor, xv. 2 does not come under this head, see § 61,7 p. 561. 


§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 627 


btu éx vekpav éynyeptat. See, in general, J. A. Lehmann de graec. ' 
ling. transp. (Danz. 1832. 4to.) p. 18 sqq.; Schwartz, de soloec. 
p- 97.4 As to Hebr. see Gesen. Leb, 854. 

b. Rom. i. 22 ddoxovtes civat codolt euwpavOncarv, 2 Pet. ii. 21 
KPELTTOV WV AVTOLS fur) ETEYVOKEVAL...7) ETLYVOVCGLY EeTLaTpeYrae 
etc. § 44, 2 p. 820; Kihner Il. 855. This sort of attraction has 
not been adopted in Acts xv. 22, 25 (Hlsner, obs. I. 428 sq.) ; 
xxvi. 20; Heb. ii.10; 1 Pet.iv.3; Lukei. 74; cf Bremi, Aeschin. 
fals. leg. p. 196. 

c. Acts xvi. 384 wyadd\udoato TeTLcTevKw@S TO Ded, 1 Cor. 
xiv. 18 edyapicTd TH Oe Tavtov bua UadoV YAwWooals NANOY 
(var.), see § 45, 4 p. 345. 

d. The most simple attraction, but one of very frequent occur- 
rence, is that in which a relative, instead of being put in the case 
(Ace.) required by the verb of the relative clause, is made to 
correspond to the verb of the principal clause, and consequently 
is put in the case governed by it: Juno. ii. 22 érictevoay TH Adyo 
@ eimrev (for ov), see § 24, 1 p. 163. 

e. Lastly, under this head would come 1 Pet. iv. 8 dpxerds 6 
Tapeknrv0as ypovos TO PovAnya TaV eOvaV KaTeLpyacBat, if, with 
Wahl, we were to resolve it thus: apxetov éotw jiv, Tov ypovoy... 

kateipy. cf. Bttm. $138, 1, 7. But there is no need of such nicety. 
On the other hand it should not be said that in Phil. i. 7 Sékacov 
éuol robto dpoveiv etc. attraction is neglected (Sicauds eiwe rT. 
gpov.) Mtth. 756, for the Greeks also use Sicaiv éote with the 
Infin. impersonally ; only they are less accustomed to connect 
with it the Dat. of the person, than to connect the personal word 
with the Infin. and put it in the Acc. Her. 1, 39. The former is 
the more simple and natural construction. 

2) The simplest form in which a subordinate clause exerts an 583 
attraction on the principal clause is when the relative pronoun, “ ¢d 
which should agree in number and gender with the noun of the 
principal clause, agrees in these respects with the noun of the 
subordinate clause; as, 1 Tim. iii. 15 & olkw Oeod, iris éotiv 
éxxdAnoia, Rom. ix. 24 (oxetn édéous) ods Kal éxdreoev Huds. In 
the following cases the attraction is carried still farther : 


1 Anticipation is properly to be admitted only when the author applied beforehand 
to the subject the subsequent predication in the accessory clause. On the contrary, 
particularly when parenthetic clauses intervene, e.g. Acts xv. 36 the construction 
émoxepaueba tovs adeApovs may at first have been alone intended, and was Exovow 
subjoined merely for further explanation. 


628 § 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 


fo! 


a. 1 Cor. x. 16 Tov aprov dy KrAdpev odyt Kowavla Tod 
oopmartos etc., Jno. vi. 29 va mictevonTe Els Ov aTréoTELNED ExEivos, 
sec § 24,2 a. pp. 164, 166, or Mark vi. 16 Ov eyo amexedadica 
"Twavyny, ovtos €otw, see § 24, 2b. p. 164, cf. Matt. vii. 9. 

b. 1 Jno. ii. 25 atrn éotly 7 émayyedia, tu adtos éarnyyeidato 
Hiv THY Conv TV atwveov for Sw in apposition to érayyeAla 
(see § 59, 7 p. 530), Philem. 10 f.; Rom. iv. 24 ara kal bv aypas, ois 
" wéedret VoylGecbar Tots muatevovary etc. (Rev. xvii. 8 var. ?). 
Luther understood’ Phil. iii. 18 also thus. Cf. further, Fr. Mr. 
328 ; Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 216; 0. 146; Kin. II. 515. 

c. Matt. x. 25 apxetov 76 pabnTn, va yévntar ws 6 diOdoKaXdos 
avTod, Kal 0 SodNoS ws O KUpLos avTod for Kat TO SovAw (iva yév.) 
@s 6 KUp. etc. 

d. Rom. iii. 8 ré &rt eyo ws dpaptwnros Kpivopar ; Kal py, Ka0ws 
Bracdnpovpcba Kai Kabas hac tives nuas éyew, OTL TOLnTwpmeEV 
Ta Kaka, iva etc., where the apostle ought to have made zroveiy 
kaka etc. dependent on «ai pu, but, misled by the parenthesis, 
appends it to Néyev in oratio recta. The same construction occurs 
not unfrequently in Greek authors, particularly in connection 
with a relative clause, see Hm. Vig. 745; Kriig. Unters. 457 ff. ; 
Dissen, Dem. cor. 177, and on the Latin usage, Beier, Cic. off. I. 
50 sq.; Grotefend, ausf. Gr. 462 f. | 

3) Two interrogative clauses following one another as predicates 
of one and the same subject are blended into one; as, Acts xi. 17 
ey dé Tis Tunv Suvatos K@AvcaL TOV Oeov ; but I, who was I? had 
I power to withstand God? Cf. Cic. N. D. 1, 27, T8 quid censes, 
si ratio esset in belluis, non suo quasque generi plurimum tributuras 
fuisse ? Luke xix. 15 ris té dverpaypatevoato; Mark xy. 24 
Tis Tt dpn; see Hm. Soph. Aj. 1164; Eurip. lo 807 ; Lob. Soph. 
Aj. 454 sq.; Ellendt, lexic. Soph. I. 824; Weber, Demosth. p. 348 
(as to Latin, Grotefend, ausf. Gram. II. 96; Kritz, Sallust. I. 211). 
For other modes of blending interrogative clauses by attraction, 
see Kiithner II. 588 f. An interrogative and a relative clause 
are blended in Luke xvi. 2 t/ todt0 axovw rept cod ; quid est quod 
de te audio, see Bornem. in loc. Similar is Acts xiv. 15 ti tadra 
TTOLELTE ; 


Luke i. 73 also I consider as an attraction: pvyoOjvor diabjKns dylas 
avtod, opKkov (for dpkov) dv apoce etc. Others, as Kiihndl, find here a 
double construction of pvyo@jvat, which in the Sept. is also construed with 
the Acc. Gen. ix. 16; Exod. xx. 8,—-a view previously adopted by an 


651 anonymous writer in the Alt. und Neu. for 1735. S. 836 f. 2 Pet. ii. 12 


§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 629 


&y ols ayvoodor BAacdynmodvres is probably to be resolved: ey rovrois, & 584 
Gyvoovct, Brac. A similar construction, BAacd. ets tia, is of frequent Tthed. 
occurrence (§ 32, 1 p. 222), cf. a dom 2 Sam. xxiii. 9, 2 Dp Isa. viii. 21 
(to which perhaps may be compared also puxrnpilew & tw 3 Esr. i. 49 ; 
see, on the other hand, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 16), though dyvoety & tive 
also is not’ without example in later writers; see Fabricii Pseudepigr. 


I, 717. 


6. But attraction is also confined to a single clause. In this 
case it is especially noticeable that two local prepositions are 
blended into one, and thus the clause gains in terseness (Hm. 
Vig. 893), Luke xi. 18 0 watjp o é& otpavod dHcer Tvetwa aytov 
for 0 matnp o év otpave dace. €& ovpavod rv. dy., [Matt. xxiv. 17 
TH €K THS oiKlas avtod for Ta év TH oixla ex THs oiklas,] Col. iv. 16 
Thy &« Aaodixelas érictoAnv tva Kal bpets avayvete (not the letter 
written from Laodicea, but) the letter written to Laodicea and 
sent again from Laodicea.! Cf. besides, Luke ix. 61 (Mark v. 26). 554 
So too with adverbs of place, as an instance of which may be ‘et 
considered Luke xvi. 26 ot éxet@@ev (Franke, Demosth. p. 13). 
With passages of the former class may also be numbered Heb. 
Xill. 24 domafovtat vpas ot amo THs ‘ItaXlas (i.e. ot €v tH ItaXla 
amo THs Itadias) ; yet it might be also rendered: those from Italy, 
the Italian Christians (who were with the writer of the letter). 
A critical argument concerning the place where the letter was 
written should never have been found in these words. On the 
other hand 2 Cor. ix. 2 and Phil. iv. 22 are also intelligible with- 
out assuming an attraction. Such condensed expression is very 
frequent in Greek authors, cf. Xen. Cyr. 7, 2,5 dpmacopevor ta 
ék tov oixiov, Thue. 2, 80 ddvvatov dévtwav EvpBonbety tov ato 
Oaracons ’Axapvdaverv, Demosth. Phil. III. 46 ete. rods é« Xepplov 
telyous ... otpatiotas e&€Banrev, Paus. 4, 13, 1 amoppipar ta aro 
THs tparré&ms, Demosth. Timocr. 483 b.; Xen. An. 1, 2,18; Plat. 
apol. p. 832 b.; Thuc. 8,5; 7,70; Lucian. eunuch. 12; Theophr. 
char. 2; Xen. Eph. 1,10; Isocr. ep. 7 p. 1012 (Judith viii. 17 ; 
Sus. 26). See Fischer, Plat. Phaed. p. 318 sq. ; Schaef. Demosth. 
IV.119; Hm. Soph. Electr. 185 and Aeschyl. Agam. vs. 516; 
Ast, Theophr. char. p. 61 ; Poppo, Thue. I. I. 176 sq.; III. II. 389; 
Weber, Demosth. 191, 446. 

7. On the other hand, sometimes a clause is grammatically 652 
resolved into two, which are connected by cad: Rom. vi. 17 yapus 


1 Jenorance of the frequency of this usage has determined several expositors, in spite 
of the context, to adhere to the translation the epistle (written by Paul) from Laodicea, 


630 §66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 


T® Oe, Tv Fre SodAOL THs Wises bmrqxovoare dé etc. (for which 
OVTES TOTE OOUAOL THS isa: virmKovaare éx kapdias might have 

585 been used),! Luke xxiv. 18 od pdvos rapouxeis ‘Iepovcad. Kai ovK 

Ith el. &yyws, where, in a language to which the participial construction 
is peculiarly congenial, it would have been more correct to say: 
ov povos mapoikov ‘lep. ove éyvws, Matt. xi. 25 probably also 1 Cor. 
iv. 4. See Fr. Mt. pp. 287, 418; Gesen. on Isa. v. 4. Cf. with 
this, what Bttm. § 136, 1 has remarked on clauses connected by 
pev and oé; and as to parataxis in general, Kiihner IJ. 415f. In 
some of these passages, however, the former construction may 
have been adopted with the design of giving to the first clause its 
full prominence. This becomes still more apparent from Jno. iii. 19 
avTn éotiv 7) Kpicts, OTL TO POS EANAVOEV Els TOV KOTMOV Kal HYAaTNTAV 
ol avOpw7rot wadrov TO oKoTos etc., see BCrus. and in particular 
Liicke in loc., ef. also vi. 50. Thus also John in vii. 4 ovde/s Te év 
KpuTT® Tovet Kal Entel avtos év trappynola eivar prefers to com- 
bine in parallelism the two irreconcilable acts (nobody does both 
at the same time), than to write odSels ... woved Entav avros ete. 
On Matt. xvili. 21 see above, § 45, note 2 p. 355. But in 
1 Pet. iv. 6 the two clauses dependent on iva are to be regarded 
as co-ordinate ; only in this connection xpivec#ar must be under- 
stood correctly. 


BRE yom ponding to this idiom, only more limited, would be the figure of 
bth ed. Speech €v dua dvoty (hendiadys), by which instead of one substantive with 
an adjective or Genitive (of quality) two substantives are used, the quality 

of the thing being thus for the sake of emphasis raised to a grammatical 
equality with the thing itself: pateris libamus et auro, i.e. pateris aureis. 
This is substantially an appositive relation: pateris et quidem auro, pat. 

h. e. auro, see Fr. exc. 4ad Mt.; Teipel in the Archiv f. d. Stud. d. neuern 
Sprachen 10 Bd. 1 Heft. For a more exact view of the subject, see 

C. I’. Miiller in Schneidewin, Philol. VII. 297 ff. Expositors have in fact 
asserted the existence of this figure in the N. T. (Glass. philol. sacra I. 

18 sq.), and some of them in the most unmeasured and injudicious terms 
(Heinrichs), e.g. Matt. iii. 11; Acts xiv.13; Jno.i.14; iii.5; Heb. vi. 10. 
But even a sifted collection of examples (Wilke, Rhet. S. 149) does not 
furnish one that is unquestionable. Either the two notions connected 
together are really distinct, as in 2 Tim. iv. 1; 2 Pet. 1.16; or the second 


1 Others, as finally F’r. also, lay the stress on the Preterite 7te, that ye WERE (that 
this is past); and this exposition may urge the position of jjre in its favor. But on 
this interpretation Paul would at any rate have expressed himself somewhat artificially, 
since 7}re primarily designates their state only as having formerly existed, not from the 
present point of view as terminated, (ye were servants, not ye have been). 


§ 67, ABNORMAL RELATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORDS. 631 


substantive is epexegetical (consequently, supplementary), as in (Rom. 653 
i. 5) Actsi.25; xxiii.6; Eph. vi. 18, cf. also 2 Cor. viii. 4 (kai and indeed, 
namely p. 437 c.), —a construction which, even though of the same genus 
with hendiadys, is of a different species. (Interpreters have wholly erred 

in wanting to find a hendiadys in the verb also, e.g. Phil. iv. 18.) 


§67. ABNORMAL RELATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORDS IN A_ 58¢ 
SENTENCE (HYPALLAGE). Tth ed. 


1. Occasionally an irregularity may be noticed in the relation 
of individual words in a sentence. This occurs sometimes as 
constructio ad sensum (very frequent in Greek authors),— an 
irregularity which, to the reader who attentively observes the 
connection, cannot render the meaning either difficult or doubtful ; 
at other times it may be characterized as an inadvertence on the 
part of the writer, who, busied with his thoughts, disregards 
accuracy of expression. 

We notice, 

a. The constructio ad sensum (pos TO onuatvopevoy or Kata 
ovveow), examples of which have already been adduced in con- 
nection with the predicate and attributive § 58, and in connection 
with the pronouns § 21 (cf. also Rev. iil. 4). 

b. The subject is omitted, and has to be indirectly supplied 
from the preceding context: 1 Cor. vii. 86 yayeitwoay viz. the 
two young persons who have associated together; as inferred 
from the preceding mention of a marriageable daughter. In Gal. 
i. 28 peovoy axovovtes oav the notion of church members is to be 
gathered from tats éxxAnolass vs. 22 (cf. Caes. gall. 4,14). There 
would be a similar instance in 1 Tim. ii. 15, if in day pevaow év 
miote. the word téxva were to be supplied from rexvoyovias pre- 
ceding. This is grammatically admissible, cf. Plat. lege. 10 
p. 886 d., where yevoyevos is referred to Peoyov/av, as if the expres- © 
sion Oedy yéveors had been employed, see Zell, Aristot. ethic. 
p. 209; Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 29, 160; Kiister (Reisig) Xen. Oecon. 
p. 247 sq., yet see above, § 58,4 p.516. In 1 Tim. v. 4 probably 556 
for pavOavétwoav the subject yfpar is to be deduced from tee 
collective tis ypa, see Huther in loc., as a Plur. often refers to 654 
tis (Rey. xiv. 11), see Herbst, Xen. mem. p. 50. On the other 
hand, in Rom. xiii. 6 Nevtoupyol Oeod eicw refers to oi dpxovtes Vs. 3. . 

c. Sometimes there is a sudden change of subject: Jno. xix. 4f. 
c&prOev otv Tadw 6 ITinGros Kal réyes avrots: “Ide ayo vpiv 


6382 § 67, ABNORMAL RELATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORDS. | 


avtov tw... Ef Oev obv 6 “Incods é&w... Kal Néyer avTois Viz. 
Pilate, cf. xix. 88; Luke xix. 4 rpodpapyov .. . avéBn emt cvKopopéapy 
(Zaryaios), va in adbtov CIncody), dtu éxeivns jyedde CInoods) 
duépyecOat, cf. xiv. 5; xv. 15; xvii. 2; Mark ix. 20; Acts vi. 6; 
x.4; Rom. x. 14f.; Judith v. 8. On 1 Jno. v. 16, see § 58, 9 
p. 523. In Greek prose authors this transition from one subject 
to another is not uncommon: Her. 6, 30 6 6€ (Histiaeus) or av 
rable kaxov ovdév, doxéeww éwol, amjxé (Darius) 7 dv ade thy aitiny, 
Demosth. c. Phorm. p. 587 a. 03 ov« éfackev obte TA ypHpata éevTE- 
Ocic@as TodTov (Phormion), ovte To ypuciov arrevAnpévae (Lampis), 

587 Plutarch. Poplic. compar. 5 ... wposéXaBev (Poplicola) dca dovra 

ee. WYATHTOV HV ViKhoaL* Kal yap TOV TodE“ov SiéXuceE (Porsena) etc., 
vit. Lysand. 24 ddXo 8 obdév éypijcato (Agesil.) adtd mpds Tov 
ToNe“ov* adda To Xpovov dieNOovtos arrémdevoev (Lysand.) eis 
Thy STaptny cte., Ages. 40 tiv Bactrelav ’Apyidapos ... TapédaPe, 
Kat (sc. avtn) Siémewe TH yéver, Artax. 15 tod Kpotddov tuyav © 
KaTéBanov Tov avopa, Kai TEOvnKev (obTOs) etc., Lysias caed. Eratosth. 
10 twa tov titOy avT@ (radio) 6156 Kai pn Bod (To mad.). Cf. 
Poppo, observ. in Thue. p. 189; Schaef. Demosth. IV. 214 and 
Plutarch. IV. 281, 381; V. 86, 295; Stallb. Plat. Gorg. 215; 
Maetzner, Antiphon 145; Schoem. Is. 294. As to Hebrew usage, 
see Gesen. Lgb. 803. 

d. Words referring to something antecedent are used in a loose 
reference. On avtos see § 22,3 p.145sq. So in Gal. ii. 2 adtois 
refers to ‘Iepocdd\vupa vs. 1, but the inhabitants are meant. Sim- 
ilarly in Acts xvii. 16; 2 Pet. ili. 4 avrotd is to be understood of . 
Christ, who has not been expressly named, but is intimated in 
mapovola. In Jno. xv. 6 avra refers to the Sing. To «Ajpa, which 
is in apposition to ef tus. In Acts iv. T avrous, in a different way, 
refers, not to avrapv vs. 5, but to vss. 1 and 2. In Acts x. 7 avT@ 
refers, not to Simon vs. 6, but to Cornelius vss. 1-5, as is indicated 
even by some MSS., which read 76 Kopyndim, a manifest gloss. 
In Acts vii. 24 trard£as tov Aiyirriov, no Egyptian had been pre- 
viously mentioned ; the déucév is merely hinted in aédscovpevon, 
and that he was an Egyptian is assumed as known from the con- 
nection. Lastly, in 2 Jno. 7 odros refers to moAXol mAdvot, and 
sums up in one person the plurality. Vice versa, in 1 Jno. iv. 4 
avtous refers to avtiypiarou vs. 3. The reference of avrod in Jno. 

655 xx. 7, of adrov vs. 15, and of éxeftvos Jno. vii. 45 to the nearest 
subject, is more simple, see p. 157. It is an inaccuracy of con- 
struction also when a pronoun, especially a relative, serves in a 


§ 67, ABNORMAL RELATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORDS. 633 


single form for two cases 1 Cor. ii. 9 & df@arpos ovK eidev Kai ods 
ove HKovcev Kal érl Kapdiay avOp. ov« avéBn Sept. Fundamentally 
this falls under the class of constructions treated of in § 64, I. 1 
p- 581 sqq. The like occurs frequently in Latin also, Kritz, 
Sallust. I. p. 67; Il. p. 295 sq. 


e. Of two parallel members of a sentence, the first is sometimes ex- 
pressed in such terms as to appear to comprehend the second, though 


from the nature of the case that is impossible: Acts xxvii. 22 droBodx 557 
Yuxns ovdeula eorar e€ bydv Any Tod rAotov would literally mean: there bth ed. 


shall be no loss of life except of the ship ; instead of which should have 
been said: there shall be no loss of life, only loss of the ship. Similar is 
Gal. i. 19 erepov t&v droordAwv odk cidov, ci pr IdkwBov tov adeAdov Tod 
kupiov, if, with Fr. Matt. p. 482, we choose to render it: al’wm apostolum 


- 


non vidi, sed vidi Jacobum ete., that is, so that it would be necessary 588 
merely to repeat «Sov with “Idx. ; yet see my Comment. and Mey. in loc. Tthed. 


Nearly the same use of ei wy occurs in Rev. xxi. 27 o@ pr) ciséAOn ... wav 
Kowov Kat 6 rowdy BdeAvypa ... ei py ot yeypappevor ev TH BiBAlw THs Cwns, 
where the yeypaypévor are not to be counted under wav xowdv. The 
meaning is rather: nothing profane shall enter ; only they who are written 
ete. shall enter, ix. 4. Cf. 1 Kings iii. 18 otk eorw odfels peO dv wapeé 
dpporepwv Hudv ev TO oikw. 

2. The very structure of the sentence has been disturbed by 
the inadvertence of the writer in Luke xxiv. 27 dapEdpevos amd 
‘Macéws kai aro Tavtwv Tov TpodnTav Sunpynvevev avtois €v Tacas 
tals ypapais ta wept avtov. -Here it can hardly be assumed that 
to Moses and the prophets are opposed certain other books of the 
O. T. to which Jesus passed, nor, with Kiihnol, that Jesus first 
quoted the statements of the prophets, then, as a separate pro- 
ceeding, began to interpret them (see van Hengel, annot. p. 104) ; 
but probably Luke meant to say: Jesus, beginning from (with) 
Moses, went through all the prophets; see also BCrus. in loc. 
Instead of this, having ao in mind, he annexes wavtes tpopfras 
in the Genitive. Meyer’s device is unsatisfactory. In connection 
with this passage may be taken Acts ili. 24 wavres of mpophras amo 
Sapounr Kat tav KabeEAs Ooor EXdAncav Kal KaTijyyerav etc. 
Luke might have said, all the prophets, Samuel (as the first) and all 
his successors (in order) ete., or, all the prophets from Samuel 
downwards, as many of them etc. As the words now stand, they 


1 In Heb. xii. 25 ef ekeivor ove e&épuyov... oA MGAAOY iets etc. those who 
(Kiihnol also) render road wardov by multo minus repeat for the apodosis éxpevtducba 
alone. But the phrase retains its signification multo magis, and the entire negative 
notion ov« éxpevé. is to be repeated after it. Cf. Caes. gall. 1, 47. 

80 


634 § 67. ABNORMAL RELATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORDS. 


65G¢ contain an unmistakable tautology. For even the division, pro- 
posed by Casaubon and adopted by a host of expositors Gincluding 
Valckenaer), T@v Ka0. door €dad. does not help the passage 
essentially. Still we have all the prophets from Samuel on, and 
then, as if not already included in the foregoing, the whole succes- 
sion that followed Samuel and prophesied. The expedient that 
van Hengel (as above, p. 103) suggests, supplying és "Iwavvev 
558 (Matt. xi. 13), is arbitrary, and gives only the equally inappropri- 
bthed ate sense: from Samuel and the succeeding prophets ... to John, 
~ whilst it was to be expected that two boundaries of this series 
would be mentioned. Hengel thus gains at last merely Luke’s 
brachylogy (already explained p. 621): dpyec@at amd... Ews. 
3. Formerly critics went much farther in discovering such inac- 
curacies resulting from inadvertence. Namely, 
a. A false reference of the attributive to the substantive, affecting 
589 the grammatical form of the former, was thought to exist not 
ithe. only in Acts v. 20 Ta pynwata tas Cohs Tav’tns (for tadra), Rom. 
vii. 24 see above, p. 237 sq., but also (Bengel on Luke xxii. 20; 
Bauer, Philol. Thucyd. Paul. p. 263) Eph. ii. 2 cara tov apyovta 
Ths €kovclas Tov dépos, Tov TvevpaTtos etc. instead of To mvedua, 
ii. 2; 2 Cor. iil. 7; Luke viii. 32; xxii. 20; and this supposed 
species of hypallage! was supported by examples from ancient 
authors. In a sentence of some length, containing a variety of 
relations, such inaccuracy, especially on the part of an unpractised 
writer, would be quite possible. In the poets also passages might 
be pointed out, which without some such assumption admit of 
only a forced interpretation, cf. Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 73 sq.; Hm. 
Vig. 891 and Soph. Philoct. p. 202 and Eurip. Hel. p. 7; Kriger, 
grammat. Untersuch. II. 87 f. But in prose such instances are 
extremely rare (Poppo, Thuc. I. 1. 161; Bornem. Xen. Anab. 
p. 206 ; Heinichen, Euseb. Il. 175); in the N. T. there is not a 
single one that is unquestionable, see F. Woken, pietas crit. in 
hypallagas bibl. Viteb. 1718. 8vo. Luke viii. 32 disposes of itself. 
As to Eph. i. 2, see my Progr. de Hypallage et Hendiadyi in N. T. 
libris. Erlang. 1824. 4to. p. 15 and Harless in loc. In Eph. ii. 2, 
where the apostle might most easily have strayed from the correct 
construction, wvedpwa is that spirit which pervades and rules men 
of the world, and of which Satan is regarded as the lord and 
master, see Mey. in loc. Heinichen, Euseb. II. 99, insists on the | 


1 Cf. Glass. philol. sacr. I. 652 sqq.; Jani, ars poet. lat. p- 258sqq. On the other 
hand, cf. Elster, de Hypallage. Helmst. 1845. 4to. 


§ 67. ABNORMAL RELATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORDS. 635 


existence of hypallage. In 2 Cor. iii. 7 ef 7 dvaxovia tod Oavdtov 657 
eV ypdppacw évteTuT@péervn ev iGo, Paul might in contrast 
with dvaxovia tod mvevpwaros have said with greater simplicity : 7 
Siaxovia Tod ypappartos évtetuT@pévov év AGous. But the present 
connection of the words is not incorrect. Moses’ ministry of 
death was in so far itself év AdOors évtetuT@pén, as it consisted in 
communicating laws threatening and inflicting death, and in 
administering them among the people. The letter of the law 
contained the ministry which Moses had to execute. Moreover, 
there is a grammatical resemblance between this passage and Tac. 
annal. 14, 16 quod species ipsa carminum docet, non impetu et 
instinctis nec ore uno flwens. In Heb. ix. 10 émxedueva is certainly 
not construed with dccavipacr instead of érixecuévots, but duxac- 
@pact is in apposition to él Bpopacw etc., and émikelueva cor- 
responds to px) duvdwevas, the neuter being selected because both, 
bapa Kkal Ovoia, are here included. According to the other 
reading, ducaw@pata, which is well supported [by Cod. Sin. also], 559 
émixeiweva can be referred to that appositive word quite regularly. bth ed, 
There is more appearance of irregular reference in Luke xxii. 20, 
where To Urép buoy éexyuvouevov might have been construed with 
€v T@ aivatt. But it is not probable that in so short a sentence 590 
Luke should have employed é«yuvduevov from inadvertence. It is Th ed. 
more likely that, as he had connected dsdopevov with capa, he 
joined éxyuv. to tror7piov, meaning the contents of the cup, and 
this metonymy is easier still than the other, 7d qot7puov 4 Kaw 
diafj«n. This anomaly is obviously not of a grammatical, but of 
a logical kind, (although to pour out a cup may be said with entire 
correctness). Yet Schulthess (on the Lord’s Supper, 8. 155 f.) 
need not have grown so warm over the matter. In Heb. vi. 1 
even Kiihnél hag rejected the hypallage, alleged by Palairet and 
others. On Jno. i. 14 rwAnpys yapitos etc. see § 62, 3 p. 564, 
and on 2 Cor. xi. 28 and Rev. i. 5, § 59, 8 pp. 582,533. In 2 Cor. 
iv. 17 aiw@yov Bapos So€ys cannot be taken for aiwviov Bap. d0Ens, 
for the reason that this would destroy the harmonious arrangement 
at which the apostle manifestly aimed (wapautixa, aidwov, éhadpor, 
Bapos, Oris, S6&a). On 1 Cor. iv. 3 see Meyer against Billroth 
and Riickert. In Acts xi. 5 eidov nataBaivov cKedds TL, ws OOovnv 
peyayv, técoapow apyais caQcevévny etc. must not be regarded 
as an hypallage, on being compared with x. 11 (xa@séuevoy) ; the 
participles may be referred with equal propriety to oxetos or to 
600vn. It is difficult to decide on 2 Cor. xii. 21 wu)... wevOncw 


636 § 68. REGARD TO SOUND, ETC. 


ToS TOV TponapTHnKOTMY Kal pi) peTavonodvTwv etc. We. 

658 naturally ask, why not all impenitent sinners? Did Paul intend 
to say : Tovs wn petavonoavtas ? As, however, in vs. 21 a different 
class of sins is named from that in vs. 20, we may, with Mey., 
conclude that the wponuaptnxdtes are more closely characterized 
by 47) petavonoadrt. as those that have remained impenitent only 
in reference to sins of sensuality, mentioned immediately after. 

b. Akin to hypallage is antiptosis, which some (including 
Kuhnol) find in Heb. ix. 2 wpodeots dptav, as if for dptot mpobécews 
(ef. as to this remarkable figure Hm. Vig. p. 890; Soph. Electr. 
p- 8; Blomfield, Aeschyl. Agamemn. 148, 1360; Wyttenb. Plat. 
Phaed. p. 232), nearly as the following passages have been un- 
derstood: Plotin. Enn. 2,1 p. 97 g. wpos to BovAnpwa Tod amroTe- 
Necpuatos UTTapyew TposyKer for pos TO TOD BouAjpaTos aTrOTEAET UA, 
orThue. 1, 6 of rpecBirepor trav eddaipdvev for of ebdaipoves TOV 
mpeaB. (see Scholiasts). But that N. T. passage is to be rendered 
quite simply: the exposition of loaves (the sacred usage of laying 
out loaves). Valcken. even wants to take 7 tpdzefa Kat  mpoé. 
apt. for » tpai. Tv aptav ths mpo8. Lastly, it is altogether 
wrong to take, as do some (including Bengel), Sdiaxwv vépov 
duxacoovrvns in Rom. ix. 31 for dccatocvynv vopov, see Fr. in loe. 
In reference to other alleged incongruities of this description, cf. 
the instructive 1st Exc. of Fr. on Mark, p. 759 sqq. 


560 §68. REGARD TO SOUND IN THE STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES ; 
6th ed. PARONOMASIA AND PLAY UPON WORDS (ANNOMINATIO), PAR- 
591 ALLELISM, VERSE. 

ith ed, 
1. The general euphony of the N. T. style Gn which cacophony 


but rarely appears, 1 Cor. xii- 2, ef. Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 105 and paralip. 
p. 553 sq.) was not for the most part the result of design. Only, 
in regard to paronomasia and annominatio, many instances may 
have been intentional. Paronomasia,! which as is well known 
consists in the combination of words of similar sound, and is one 
of the favorite fancies of Oriental writers,? is peculiarly frequent 
in the Epistles of Paul, partly, it should seem, accidentally, and 
partly studied by the writer in his desire to impart genial liveliness 


1 See Glassii philol. sacr. I. 18335-1342 ; Ch. B. Michaelis, de paronomas. sacra. Hal. 
1737. 4to., also Lob. paralip. 501 sqq. A solid and exhaustive monograph is J. F. 
Bottcher’s de paronomasia finitimisque ei figuris Paulo Ap. frequentatis. Lips. 1823. 8vo. 

2 See Verschuir, dissertat. philol. exeg. p. 172 sqq. 


§ 68, REGARD TO SOUND, ETC. 637 


to the expression, or greater emphasis to the thought; as, Luke 
xxi. 11 cai AXepol Kai Novpot Ecovtar (cf. the German Hunger 
und Kummer), Hesiod. opp. 226; Plutarch. Coriol. c. 18, see 
Valcken. in loc.; Acts xvil. 25 Conv Kat mvonv (ef. the German 
leben und weben, Hiille und Fiille, Saus und Braus, réidern und 
ddern, Varr. R. R. 8, 2, 13 utrum propter oves, an propter aves, 
see Baiter, Isocr. Paneg. p. 117); Heb. v. 8 éuadev ad’ ov 
é7a@ev (seine Leiden leiteten ihn zum Gehorsam, cf. Her. 1, 207), 
see Wetst. and Valcken. in loc.; Rom. xi. 17 twés trav KkrXAdov 
efexNacOnoarv. Thus, in a series of words, the paronomastic 
are placed next to each other, as in Rom. i. 29, 31 (aopveda, 
movnpia) pOdvov, fovov ... acuvétous, acvvOérovs (Wetst. in loc.). 
In other passages words of similar derivation are placed together ; 
as, 1 Cor. ii. 13 év didaxtots mvedmatos, TrvevpaTiKois TYEeUWaTLKa 
ovykpivovtes, 2 Cor. viii. 22 €v moddois ToddaKIs oTrovbaior, ix. 8 
éy mavtl mavtote Tacav avtapxevav, Acts xxiv. 3; 2 Cor. x. 12 
avrol év éavtols EavTovs petpovvTes, Rom. viii. 23 adtol év éavtois 
otevatopev, Phil. i.4 (Xen. mem. 3,12, 6 duskoda Kai pavia vod- 
AaKLS TOAKNOLS ... éutrimtovow, 4,4, 4 ToAABY TOAAaKIS BO 
Tov duxacTov adiewevov, An. 2,4,10 avtol éf Eautav éywpour, 
2,5, T mavtn yap mavta Tots Oeois troya Kal TavTayh 
mavtwv icov oi Geol Kpatodot, Polyb. 6, 18,6; Athen. 8, 352; 
 Arrian. Epict. 8, 23, 22; Synes. prov. 2, p. 116b. wdavra tap- 
Tayod TavTwY KaKov éuTrea Hv, see Krii. Xen. An. 1, 9, 2; 
Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 1388, 880; Boisson. Nicet. 243; Beier, Cic. off. 5992 
J. 128; Jahn, Archiv II. 402). Matt. xxi. 41 kaxods cakds thed. 
atoréce, avtovs he will miserably destroy those miserable fellows 
(Demosth. Mid. 413 b. eita Oavpaters, e¢ KaKkds KaKaS aon, 
adv. Zenoth. 575 c¢.; Aristophan. Plut. 65, 418; Diog. L. 2, 76; 
Alciphr. 8, 10; cf. also Aeschyl. Pers. 1041; Plaut. Aulular. 1, 
1, 3sq. and Schaef. Soph. Electr. 742; Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 471 and 561 
paralip. 8, 56 sqq. ; Foertsch, de locis Lysiae p. 44).1 bth ed, 
Writers occasionally use strange or uncommon words, or forms, 
for the purpose of producing a paronomasia (Gesenius LG. 8. 858) 
e.g. Gal. v. 7 meifecOar ... 7) TEetcmovy (see my Comment. in 
loc.), ef. die Bisthiimer sind verwandelt in Wistthiimer, die Abteien 


1 See also Doederlein, Progr. de brachylogia p. 8 sq. Especially a large collection of 
such paronomastic combinations will be found in H. A. Diller, Progr. de consensu 
notionum qualis est in vocibus ejusd. originis diversitate formarum copulatis. Misen. 
1842. 4to. 


660 


593 
Tth ed. 
562 
6th ed, 


638 - § 68. REGARD TO SOUND, ETC. 


sind nun — Raubteien (Schiller in Wallenstein’s Lager), Verbes- 
serungen nicht Verbéserungen.} 

2. Annominatio is akin to paronomasia, but differs from it in 
this: that it adds to a regard for the sound of words, a regard to 
their meaning also (as, in German: Traume sind Schiume) ; 
consequently for the most part it consists of antitheses, e.g. Matt. 
xvi. 18 ov ef Ilétpos, kat ert tavtn Th TéTP|@ vikodomijce etc., 
Rom. v. 19 sep dia THs TMapakons Tov éEvos avOpwTrov apwapTwrol 
Katesta@yaav ot TONAL, oUTw Kal bia THS UTAKONS Tod évds Sikatot 
KatacTabjcovtat, i. 20 Ta dopata avtod...Kkalopatat, Phil. 
ili. 2f. Brérreve THY KaATATOMIY, NuEls yap EcpEev 17) TEPLTOMH 
(Diog. L. 6, 24 tv EvxreiSov cyornv edeye yornv, Tiy Oe 
IIhdtwvos Stat piByy KkatatpeByyv), ili. 12; 2 Cor. iv. 8 amvo- 
povecvot, adr ovK é€Earvopovpevot, 2 Thess. iii. 11 pmdev 
épyalomévous, adda Tepltepyalomévovus (cf. Seidler, Hurip. 
Troad. p. 11), 2 Cor. v. 4 é¢’? & od Oérouev exdtcacbat, Grr 
emevovcacd Gat, Acts vill. 30 dpa ye yLvOoKELS, a AVAYLYOOKELS; 
Jno. ii. 23f. wodrdol éa@ictevaoayv els TO Gvoya avTov ... avTos be 
"Incods otk émiatevey éautov avtois, Rom. i. 28; iii. 8; xi. 17; 
xii. 8; xvi. 2; Eph. i, 284 ii. 14,19 ;-Gal. iv. 17; 1 Corsini 
vi. 2; x1. 29, 81; xiv. 10; 2 Cor. 11.2; ¥. 215 x. 33D 
2 Tim. 11.4; iv. 7; 3 Jno. 7f.; Rev. xxii. 18f. [ Matt. vi. 16]. 
In Philem. 20 the allusion in ova/uny to the name of the slave 
‘Ovncipos? is less obvious. Moreover, the same remark made 
above respecting strange words may be repeated here, and is per- 
haps applicable to Gal. v. 12; cf. my Comment. in loc., and also 


1 In the Agenda of Duke Henry of Saxony, 1539, it is said in the preface respecting 
the Popish parson: sein Sorge ist nicht See/sorge, sondern Meelsorge. 

? An annominatio in which regard is had solely to the meaning occurs in Philem. 11 
"Oviomoy Toy woTé go &XpnaToy, vuri b€ cot Kal euol e¥xpnaroy etc. Still more 
Jatent would be the annominatio in 1 Cor. i. 23: knptocouey Xpiotoy Eo Tavpwpméevor, 
"Iovdalois wey okdvdadov, veor 5¢ pwplav, avrots 5é Tos KANTOIS... copiar, 
where Paul is said to have had in view the words pow chald. cruz, riven oxdyvdadroy, 
220 stultus, and paw sapientia (Glassit philol. I. 1339). Iam not aware, however, of 
such a word as paw in Chaldaic; and it is only in Aethiopic that bpw signifies 
cross. The whole statement is an instance of learned trifling. Equally improbable 
is Jerome’s conjecture on Gal. i. 6, that in wetari@ec0e the apostle makes an allusion 
to the Oriental etymology of the name TaAdra: (from D3 or Ere he see my Comment. 
in loc. and Boettcher as above, 8. 74 sq. In the discourses of Jesus, which were 
delivered in Syro-Chaldaic, many verbal allusions may have disappeared in the process 
of translating into Greek, cf. Glass. l.c. p. 1339. But the attempt of modern critics to 
restore some of them, as in Matt. viii. 21 (Hichhorn, Einl. ins N. T. I. 504f.) and Jno. 
xiii. 1 (ueraB7, MOB, MOB), must be pronounced decidedly infelicitous. 


e 


§ 68. REGARD TO SOUND, ETC. 639 


Terent. Hecyr. prol. 1, 2 orator ad vos venio ornatu prologi, sinite 661 
exorator sim. 


_ That similar instances of paronomasia and annominatio would not be 
wanting in native Greek authors, particularly the orators, was naturally 
to be expected. Collections of them have been make by Tesmar, institut. 
rhetor. p. 156 ff.; Elsner, in diss. IJ. Paul. et Jesaias inter se comparati 
(Vratisl. 1821. 4to.) p. 24; Bremi, exc. 6 ad Isocr.; Weber, Demosth. 
p- 205. Cf. (further): Demosth. Aristocr. 457 b. dvOpumous otdé éXevd é- 
povs GAN 6A €Opouvs, Plato, Phaed. 83d. dudrpomds te kal 6porpodos, 
Aesch. Ctesiph. § 78 od rov rpdmov GdAa Tov TdOTOV povov perHra€er, 
Strabo 9, 402 ddackew exetvous cvvOécOar ypépas, viKtup 6& éeriOéa Oar, 
Antiph. 5,91 ed d€ou duaprety eri tw, ddikws GroADGat douwrTepov av Ein TOD 
py dixaiws aroX€cat, Diod. §. 11, 57 dd€as rapaddéws diacecdcbau, 
Thuc. 2, 62 py dPpovypate povov, dd\dA kal katadpovynpare (Rom. 
xii. 3), Lys. in Philon. 17; Xen. A. 5,8, 21; Plat. rep. p. 580 b.; Lach. 
p- 188 b.; Diod. Sic. Exc. Vat. p. 27, 5; Appian. civ. 5, 1382 trav vuxro- 
durakwy €9os kal etdos, Diog. L. 5,17; 6, 4; Aelian. anim. 14, 1; see 
Bttm. Soph. Philoct. p. 150; Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 188. In the Sept. and 
Fathers cf. especially Sus. 54, 55 cimdv, trd ti Sévdpov cides aitovs ... b7d 
oxtvov. Hime dé AavpA... cxioet oe pécov. 58, 59 etrev S70 rptvor. 
Eire 6¢ Aavijd ... tiv popdatav éywv tploae oe peoov (cf. Africani ep. 
ad Orig. de hist. Susan. p. 220 ed. Wetsten.), 3 Esr. iv. 62 dveowv kat 
adheotv, Wisd.i.10 dre ots Cyrwoews aKxpoarac Ta TavtTa Kal Opods 
_ yoyyvopav oiK droxpizrerat, Xiv. 5 GéAes py Apya clva Ta THs Gopias vov 
épya (cf. Grimm, Comment. on the Book of Wisdom, Introd. p. 40), Acta 
apocr. p. 243 é€ dwetplas paddov dé dzopias, Macar. hom. 2, 1 rd cépya 
ox vy pwépos 7 péAXos macy. As to Latin, see Jani, ars poet. 
423 sq. 


3. Parallelismus membrorum, the well-known peculiarity of 594 
Hebrew poetry, occurs also in the N.T. when the style rises to the 
the elevation of rhythm. This parallelism is sometimes synonymous, 
Semen att. X. 20; Jno.i. 17; vi. 30; xiv. 275) Rom. ix. 2; xi. 12, 
Basel cor. xv..04; 2 Thess. ii. 8; Heb. xi. 17; Jas.iv.9; 2 Pet. 

ii. 3, etc., and sometimes antithetic, as in Rom. ii. 7; Jno. iii. 6, 
20f.; 1 Pet. iv. 6; 1 Jno. ii. 10, 17, etc. See, in particular, the 
hymn in Luke i. 46 ff; ef. § 65, 5 p. 611 (HE. G. Rhesa, de paral- 
lelismo sententiar. poet. in libris N. T. Regiom. 1811. II. 4; J.J. 
Snouk Hurgronje, de parallel. membror. in J. Chr. dictis observando. 
Utr. 1836. 8vo.). Sometimes dogmatical statements which might 
be expressed in a single proposition are divided in this way into 563 
parallel members, Rom. iv. 25; x.10. Likewise 1 Tim. iii. 16, Shel. 
where parallelism is accompanied with entire similarity of the 662 


595 


Tth ed. < 


4s 
640 § 68, REGARD TO SOUND, ETC. 


clauses, appears to be a quotation from one of the hymns of the 
appEtOls church. 

4. The Greek verses or parts of verses! found in the N. T. are 
of two sorts: they either belong to Greek poets and are quoted 
as theirs; or they make their appearance suddenly and without 
any sign of quotation, — whether because they were current poetic 
utterances of unknown authorship, or, as is more frequently the 
case, were let fall by the writer unconsciously, which sometimes 
occurs even in good prose writers, but was pronounced a blemish 
by the ancient teachers of rhetoric.2 The apostle Paul alone has 
inwoven poetic quotations into his discourses, and in three passages 
(J. Hoffmann de Paulo apost. scripturas profanas ter allegante. 
Tubing. 1770. 4to.): 

a. In Tit. i. 12 there occurs an entire hexameter, from Epi- 
menides of Crete (idcos av’tay mpodyrns cf. vs. 5) : 


-_ w vi— - -_ - 


Kpnres ajeu ev yaorepes | apyat. 
b. Acts xvii. 28 contains the half of an hexameter: 


-_ v v = vv _- v v 

















Onpia 


oTAL, KAKA 


- — - v v - v 





Tov yap | Kal YEVOS | Eo MEV, 
ef. Arat. Phaenom. 5, where the conclusion of the verse runs thus: 
0 © HTTLOS FR es (deEva onpaiver), so that a spondee occurs 
in the fifth foot, as frequently happens, particularly in Aratus 10, 
12, 32, 33. 

c. In 1 Cor. xv. 83 there is an lamb. trimeter acatalectus 
(senarius) : 

Plerpovjow n\On ypnoW | opt|dvae | Kaka, 

where, as often takes place, spondees are used in the odd feet 1 
and 3 (Hm. doctr. metr. p. 74°). The quotation is from the 
well-known comic poet Menander, and, according to H. Stephanus, 
from his Thais (see Menandri Fragm. ed. Meineke p. 75, and Fragm. 


fw =f w= vy, - 














1 Loeffler, de versib. qui in soluta N. T. oratione habentur. L. 1718. 4to. ; Kosegar- 
ten, de poetarum effatis graec. in N. T., also his Dissertatt. acad. ia Mohnike 
p- 1385 sqq. 

2 Cf. Cic. orat. 56, 189 (a passage erroneously quoted by Weber, Demosth. p. 208), 
Quintil. Instit. 9, 4, 52. 72sqq.; Fabric. biblioth. latin. ed. Hrnesti II. 389; Nolten, 
Antibarb. under the word versus; Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 52 sq. ; Dissen, Demosth. 
cor. p. 315; Franke, Demosth. p. 6, likewise the Classical Journ. no. 45, p. 40sqq. I 
have never seen the dissertation of Loeffler (Moeller) de versu inopinato in prosa. L. 1668. 
That condemnation of poetic insertions in prose, has been feet and corrected by 
Hm. opusc. I. 121 sqq. 

8 In Hm. doctr. metr. p. 189 tmpari sede is probably a migra for pari. 


§ 68. REGARD TO SOUND, ETC. 641 


comic. gr. ed. Meineke vol. 4 p. 182). However, the best Codd. 663 
of the N. T. [Sin. also] give ypnora without elision. 
5. To the second of the above-mentioned classes! belong 564 
a. The hexameter in Jas. i. 17, which even the old commentators th ed. 
had recognized : 


- v v v v - - - - v v —--v 











mTaca bo\ats aya\On Kat | Tav Sw|pnua TE|NELov 

(where, in the second foot in the arsis, ov might be used as long) ; 
see the commentators in loc. Schulthess tried to arrange the rest 
of the passage into two metrical verses ; but the rhythm is harsh, 
and the use of poetic words does not in James warrant us in 
inferring the presence of verses and restoring them by means of 
violent alterations and transpositions. 

On the other hand b. an unmistakable hexameter occurs in 
Heb. xii. 13 in the words 


= vy ws - - -mj—- vw — vy wv _-_ - 

















Kat TpoXt\as op|\Gas rroul\noate | ToLs Trocw | buwv : 
And c. in Acts xxiii. 5 the words quoted from the Sept. may 
be scanned as an lamb. trimet. acatal. : 


v - v = 








apyov|ta Tov |. \aov | cou ovk | Epes | Kakws, 
but, owing to the thrice occurring spondee in the Ist, 3d, and 4th 596 
feet, it would be offensive to a Greek ear. Tth ed. 
Lastly, in Jno. iv. 35 the words terpapnvos ... épyeras have the 
rhythm of a trimeter acatalect., if read thus : 
TETPAUN|\VOS Ea|TL Ya@| Depic|wos EpX 
The first foot is an anapaest (Hm. doctr. metr. p. 119 sq.). As 


to yw for «ai o, see Bttm. I. 122. 


v - — v = v cd v - v — 

















ETAL. 


1 Hunting for such verse is so much the more a matter of idle curiosity, as prosaic 
rhythm is different from poetic and sometimes does not permit these passages to appear 
as verse; Hm. as above, p. 124; Thersch in the Munich gel. Anzeigen 1849. Bd. 28 
nr. 118. We have adduced such passages only as by themselves furnish a complete 
thought. For half or incomplete sentences containing a rhythm, see the Classical 
Journal, as above, p. 46 sq. Also in 2 Pet. ii. 22 some have, by combining the two 
proverbs, framed Iambic verses, see Lengel. 

81 


rete he a aah CAT food ih 7 
Baty ffi Ss She RRR eee Fe 
Sechny "/ ethene: yey bie 

fae tai. ie} eRe Sie nde per ts i} 


ee Le ie) Cees 
& tet i ert alte ¥ 7) Beet, 
ae Bas Pee a, Gis a 


t 





, ‘ ‘ a 
i. in : 
S ‘i Ss 
7 f ee yee 
. ~ vr. Ors 
vt a 
‘ei aut 
t a"? j 
ihe Ge ‘7 *, iat r yh i 
7 I t ve ' wey A 
ee Ga 
‘ Yd, lal Te 
ee, 
* bY ’ os 
m a | ¢ sh 4 
, - id Py 
Z 
‘ 
* 
¢ “ 4 
‘ JL oh! ‘tr ert 
*, 
i 
r M Fi ; . 
‘ * a 
ww) «# ‘ 
- ’ 
: 25 
y a ' ial 
‘ 
* * 
' 
H 
‘ 
' 
‘i ‘ e ‘ ‘ ‘ 
P - ‘ 
‘ Pe “ 
¢, 
~ 
7 
a 
- ‘ is} 
7 a 
e ' 
A J 
; 1 ab 
<s 
y 0 oe ti 
‘ hidvin ae 
< D ay ’ 
i¢ ‘a ¥ , 
= in 
(Sr geek. e 
\ i. an y 4 
i es " ae ' 
Bie 
. ‘ - 
* 
i nS» ar I \ 
: » 
, j 
by 
s 
* 
Teer aay fl 
é 
bs oir aT he a 
i . * ? Ua 5 q : 
Oe oh 
" 7 Ni 
= .; . < - 
\ ie ’ , 
eh" a 
pa . : ‘taal 
ra 7 i? y 
miki 
‘ i 
, “a 4 ny aa o 
- / ‘. J c nie a ’ 
' P =a - Oe a a 
¢ ain s,, A" 


INDEX. 


I INDEX OF PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS. 


The Figures refer to Pages. 


Abbreviations popular 102. 


Abnormal relation of words in a sen- 
tence 631 sqq. 


Abounding verbs of, with the gen. 201. 


Absolute cases 181; gen. 207sq.; dat. 
220; ace. 181, 231, 574. 


Abstracts often without the art. 120; in 
the plur. 176 ; joined to concretes 530. 


Accentuation 49 sqq.; distinguishes 
forms 53 sq.; of enclitic pron. 54. 
Accusative the, with trans. verbs 221 
sqq.; of kindred signification 224; of 
place after verbs of motion 224; of 
object, not expressed by év (3) 226 ; 
double 226 sqq. ; after passives 229.; as 
remote object 229 sqq.; specification of 
time and place 230; of closer speci- 
fication 230; adverbial 464; absolute 
181, 231, 574; with infin. 321; after 
é7t 573; of neut. pron. or adj. added 

to verb 227. , 


Accusing verbs of, with the gen. 203. 


Active Verbs transitive 251 etc.; for 
reflexives 251; for passives 252; for 
middle 255 sq. 

Adjectives inflection and comparison 
of 68 sqq.; derivative and compound 
96 sqq.; with subst. and art. 131 sq.; 
used as subst. take the art. 108 sq. ; 
neut. as subst. 95, 234, 517; with the 
voc. 183 ; subst. used for 236 sq. ; 





alleged Hebr. use of fem. for neut. 
238 ; comparison of 239 sqq.; used 
for adverbs 463 ; position of 523 sqq. ; 
two or more without a copula 525; 
referring to substs. of different gend. 
or numb. 526 sq.; predicate 528 ; ,can 
they be omitted ? 594 sq.; of result, 
proleptic use of 624; supposed ab- 
normal relation of 634 sq. 


Adverbs in : or «143 sq. ; used with art. 
for nouns 109; relative often include 
def. 159; prepositions combined with 
422 sq. ; prepositions used for 102, 423; 
N. T. writers masters of 462; use of 
adjs. and substs. for 463 sq. ; are they 
used for adjs. ? 465; adverbial notions 
expressed by the dat. or the part. 
466; treated as verbal467sq.; used as 
prepositions 470 sq.; of place inter- 
changed 471 sq.; irregular position of 
553; no ellipsis of 595. 

Aeolisms 36, 76, 83. 

Alexandrian dialect 21; orthography 
48; version (Sept.) 31 sq. 37 sq. 
Amplification 523 sqq.; predicative 527. 
Anacoluthon punctuation of 58 ; 168; 
in the Rey. 535sq.; 566sqq.; instances 

of peculiarly Greek 572 sqq. 

Annominatio 637 sq. 

Antiptosis 636. 


Antithesis 441 sqq. 538, 540 sq. 
643 


644 


Aorist used for pluperf. 275; for perf. ? 
276; only in appearance for fut. 277 ; 
never in N. T. expresses what ts wont 
to be! etc. 277 ;- for pres.? 278; de 
conatu? 278sqq.; aor. mid. for pass. 4 
255; aor. pass. for mid.? 261; Acolic 
form of Ist aor. opt. 76; 2d aor. with 
ending a 73 sq. 

Apodosis how introduced 541 ; doubled 
541 sq.; omitted 599; in condensed 
structure 619. 

Aposiopesis 599 sqq. 

Apostrophe rare use of in N. T. 40 sq. 

Apposition use of art. with words in 
138; kinds of 528sq.; construction 
of 529 sq.; so-called gen. of 531; to 
the voc. put in nom. 533; to a whole 
clause 533; position of 534; in bre- 
viloquence 624. 

Aramaisms in N. T. 27 sq. 

Arrangement of words ete.see Position. 

Article the, as a pron. 104 sq.; before 
nouns 105 sqq.; generic 106; not used 
for a pronominal adj. 107; not used 
for rel. pron. 107; for possess. pron. 


108 ; peculiarly Greek use of 108 sq.; 


with adjs. and parts. used as substs. 
108 ; with woAAoi 110; with odros or 
éxetvos 110; with was 110 sq.; with 
roodros 111; with €xacros 111; with 
avrdés 112; with proper names 112; 
with the pred. 114; indefinitely ? 115 ; 
when optional 115 sq.; the indef. (zis) 
expressed sometimes by eis 2117; its 
use or omission sometimes a character- 
istic of style 118; variation of MSS. as 
to use of 118; omission of with nouns 
denoting single objects ete. 119 sq. ; 
with abstracts 120; with nouns ren- 
dered def. by a gen. 125; with a 
numeral 125 sq. ; its use and omission 
with nouns connected by rat 126 sqq. ; 
by 7 127; with attributives 131 sqq. ; 
with attrib. part. 134; with a part. 
in a derisive force 135 ; when omitted 
with adjuncts 135 sqq.; use of with 
words in apposition 138 ; with an at- 
tributive joined to an anarthrous noun 
139 sq.; with the infin. 320, 324. 
Asyndeton 58, 520, 537 sqq. 
Atticisms 36. 











‘ye 


ENGLISH INDEX. 


Attraction of the relative 163; by the 
relative 164; of the relative by a 
noun following 166 ; in structure 544, 
625 sqq. 

Augment temp. for syllab. 70; of verbs 
beginning with ev 71; double 72; 
omitted 72 sq. 


Beth essentiae 38, 184, 513. 


Blended constructions as causing re- 
dundancies 605. 


Breviloquence (brachylogy) 619 sqq. 

Breathings over p 48. 

Broken and _ heterogeneous structure 
566 sqq. 

Buying etc. verbs of, take gen. of price 
206. 


Cardinals repeated assume a distributive 
sense 249; use of the sing. to signify 
one 249 ; arrangement of in combina- 
tions 250. 


Caring for verbs of, with the gen. 205. 


Cases in general 179 sqq.; no enallage 
of 180; absolute 181, 220, 231.Cf. Ab- 
solute cases. 


Cause dative of 216. 
Chiasmus 411. 
Cilicisms in N. T. 27. 


Circumlocutions use of prepositions 
in 423 sqq. 


Circumstantiality of style 605 sqq. 


Clause necessary contents of a grammat- 
ical 56 sq., 512; want of connection 
of clauses 537 sq.; connection of by 
particles 539 sqq. ; contrasted 540; 
connected by forms of inflection (infin. 
or part.) 543; position of 546 sqq:, 
of arelative 167, 542; rhetorical trans- 
position of 549; trajection of 551 sq., 
560; one expressed twice 610; one 
resolved into two 629 sq. Cf. Structure 
of sentences. 


Collectives with a plur. pred. and with 
a sing. 515 sq.; with plur. adj. 526. 


Comma use of 56sqq.; a half comma 
desirable 59. 


Comparative of adverbs 69 sq.; of adj. 
sometimes formed by the pos. with uaa- 


> 


ENGLISH INDEX. 


Aoy a prep. or # 240; strengthened by 
uaAAoy 240; strengthened by a prep. 
240 ; used for the pos. ? 242; for the 
superl. ? 242; in loose reference 245. 


Comparison, of adjectives 69; abbre- 
viated 245, 623. 

Compound words formation of 99sqq.; 
substantives 99 sq, 101; adjectives 100; 
verbs 100 sq. 102 ; adverbs 102 ; proper 
names 102 sq. 

Conjunctions use of 433 sq. ; conjunc- 
tive 434 sqq.; disjunctive 440 sq.; ad- 
versative44l1 sq.; temporal, inferential, 
causal 444 sqq.; final and objective 
449 ; not interchanged, nor weakened 
449 sqq. ; position of 119, 558 sq.; no 
ellipsis of 595. 

Constructio ad sensum 141, 147, 
513 sqq. 525 sqq. 631. 


Constructio praegnans 621. 
Construction seeStructure of sentences. 
Contraction 46, 102. 


Copula agrees in number with subj. 
513 sq.; omitted 521, 584 sq. 


Correlation 440. 
Crasis 46. 


Dative the, of pers. pron. apparently 
pleonastic 155; after verbs 208 sq.; 
after elvar and yiveo@a: 210; after 
substantives 211; of relation (opinion, 
interest, commodi and incommodi) 211 
sq.; eis and éy in periphrasis for 212, 
217; for tne local mpés and eis 214; 
related to werd 214; with verbs of 
coming 215; in reference to which (the 
sphere, the standard, the cause and 
motive) 215 sq. ; instrumental 216 ; 
use of éy, kata, Sia etc. for 217; of 
time, whether a point or a period 218 ; 
of place 219; with passives 219; ab- 
solute 220; double 220sq.; of the 
infin. 328; after éy 384sqq.; after 
avy 391; after érf 392 sq. ; after mapa 
394; after mpds 395. 

Dawes’s rule 507. 

Declension rare forms of the Ist 60; 
of the 2d 62; of the 3d 64; declension 
of foreign words 66; of adjectives 68. 

Defective structure 580 sqq. Cf. Struc- 
ture of sentences. 





645 


Defective Verbs 81 sqq. 

Demonstrative pronouns neut. used 
adverbially 142; irregular reference 
of 157; included in the relative 158; 
repetition of 159sq.; before 671, va 
etc. 161; before a pred. infin. or a 
subst. 161; before a particip. constr. 
161; the plur. for sing. 162; position 
of 162; omitted in cases of attraction 
165 sq.; in loose reference 632. 


Deponent Verbs 258 sq. 

Derivation by terminations: of verbs 
91,of substantives 93, of adjectives 96 ; 
by composition : of substantives 99, of 
adjectives 100, of verbs 100 sq. 

Desiring verbs of,take the gen. 204. 

Dialect the Alexandrian 20, 21 ; 
Hellenistic 28; the Christian 35. 

Digressions 565. 

Diminutives 96. 


Discord supposed, between subj. and 
+ pred. 517. 


the 


Disjoining verbs of, take prep. 197. 

Distributives how expressed in N.T. 
249. 

Doric forms etc. 36. 

Dual the, not found in N. T. 177. 


Elision comparatively rare in N. T. 40. 

Ellipsis with adj. 234; 580 sqq.; of the 
copula 584 sq. ; of the subj. 588 ; list of 
substs. often omitted 590 ; of the noun 
with trans. verbs 593; none of adv. 
or conj. 595; partial of both subj. 
and pred. in the same clause 596; of 
a whole proposition 598 ; in quotations 
from O. T. 599. 

Enallage of gend. in pronouns 141 ; of 
numb. in the same 141; of the gend. 
and numb. of nouns 174sq.; of cases 
180; of tenses 264; of prep. 361, 411; 
of numb. with verbs 515; of gend. 
with verbs 517. 


Enclitics how to be written 54 ; position 
of 558. 

Enjoying verbs of, with the gen. 197. 

Epexegetical apposition 528; gen. 531. 


Extension of subj. or pred. of a prop. 
523 sqq. 


646 


Feeling verbs of, with the gen. 204. 


Feminine the, is the neut. used for ? 
179, 238; in contempt 179. 


Foreign Words declens. of 66 sq. 

Forms rare of the Ist or 2d declens. 
60 sq.; of the 3d declens. 64 sq.; of 
regular verbs 73sq.; of verbs in pu 
etc. 78 sq. 

Fritzsche K. F. A. 10. 

Fulness of expression 605, 609 sqq. 


Future the, Attic 75; subjunctive 75; 
mid. for pass. 255; ethical (may or 
should) 279; 3d fut. pass. 279; not 
used for the pret. 280; sometimes 
nearly equiv. to the pres. 280; of a 
supposable case 280 ; supposed equiv. 
to the optat. 280; for the impera. 315. 


Gataker Thom. 14. 


Gender of Nouns new 36, 63, 65; 
174 sqq.; the neut. used of a person 
178 ; supposed interchange of 178 sq. 5 
supposed contemptuous force of fem. 
179; a noun of any gend. taken 
merely as a word is treated as neut. 
179. 


Genitive the, of pron. position of 155; 
import and use of 184 sqq. ; objective 
185; and subjective 186; of remote 
dependence 187 sqq.; of local and 
temporal reference (see below) 187 sq. ; 
of relationship 190, 593; several gov. 
one by another 190; separated from 
governing noun 155, 191; two of dif- 
ferent signif. (pers. and thing) 191; 
placed before its noun 192, 551; sup- 
posed use of wep, amd, ex, apd, év, 
kard, eis in circumlocution for 192 sq. ; 
with adjs. and parts. 194; after elvat 
or yivesOa 195; of separation and 
removal 196 ; with verbs of the senses, 
and of beginning, receiving, begging, 
giving ete. 197 sq.; partitive 200 sqq. ; 
gov. by an adverb 203 ; partit. gen. as 
subject 203; with verbs of accusing, 
boasting, smelling 203 sq. ; with verbs 
of feeling, longing, remembering, car- 
ing for, ruling 204 sqq. ; of price 206 ; 
of place and of time 207; absol. 207, 
544; of material 237; with the compar. 
239 sq.; of apposition 5381. 


ENGLISH INDEX. 


Georgi Ch. Sgm. 15, 
Giving verbs of, with the gen. 197. 


Grammar N. T., scope and treatment 
of 1 sq.; history of 5 sqq.; works upon 
10 sq.; grammat. peculiarities of later 
Gr. 26sq.; of the language of the 
N, 1.00 Bq. 


Greek later, peculiarities of 20 sqq. 


Haab Ph. H. 6. 


Hebraisms opinions on 13 sqq.; errors 
of writers concerning 29 sq.; definition 
of 30; perfect and imperfect 31 ; speci- 
fied 32 sqq. 38 sq. ; in connection with 
certain pronouns (mas) 171 sq.; es 
and éy in supposed circumlocution for 
the nom. 183; supposed Hebr. use of 
a fem. adj. for neut. 238; supposed 
use of vids ete. for adjs. (employed as 
subs.) 238; Hebr. superl. 246; sup- 
posed Hebr. interchange of tenses 264 ; 
in use of imperatives 311. 


Hellenistic Dialect the term 28; its 
peculiarities cf. 22 sqq. 


Hendiadys 630. 

Heterogeneous Structure 577 sq. 
Hiatus 40 sq. 

Hypallage 634. 

Hyperbaton 555 sq. 
Hypodiastole the 46. 


Hypothetical Sentences, four kinds 
of etc. 291 sqq. 


Hysteron Proteron 553. 


Imperative the, 3d pers. plur. of 76; 
usual import of 310; permissive 311 ; 
two connected by xaf 311; aor. and 
pres. distinguished in N. T. 313 sq. ; 
perfect 315; substitutes for 315 sq. 


Imperfect the use of 268 sqq.; appar- 
ently for the aor. 269; never for the 
pluperf. 269; conjoined with the aor. 
270; apparently for the pres. 270. 


Impersonal Verbs 522, 588. 


Indeclinable Words accent of 52; 61, 
67. 


Indefinite (article) pron. (7s) sometimes 


expressed by efs 117; use of 170; po- 
sition of 170 sq. 


4 


Indicative the, distinguished from the 
subjunc. and the opt. 281; imperf. 
sometimes used for our subjunc. 282 ; 
pres. in direct questions to be distin- 
guished from the subjunc. 284; after 
particles of design 289 ; with édy 295 ; 
with particles of time 296 ; with inter- 
rogatives in indirect quest. 298; after 
ei, ef &pa, cimws 300; in the orat. obliq. 
301; with dpedoy 301 sq.; with ay 
302 sqq. 

Infinitive the, for the imperat.316 ; ep- 
exegetic 318, 326 ; as the subject 319 ; 
as the object 321 sq.; in the oblique 
cases, especially to express design 324 
sq-; with the art. 320, 323, 324; after 
éyévero 323; with éori 320 sq.; with 
the acc. 321, 323; with rod 324 sqq. ; 
with +r@ 328; with preps. 328 sq.; 
after mpfy 330; pres. and aor. dis- 
tinguished in N. T. 330 sq. ; perf. 331, 
334 ; with wéAAew 37, 333; tva some- 
times used for 320, 334 sqq.; scme- 
times gives place to a clause with «i, 
édy ctc. 320; in modern Gr. 336; act. 
apparently for pass. 339; after 671 339, 
573; inimitation of Hebr. infin. absol. 
339 ; as a means of connection 543. 


Interjections 356. 

Interrogative, neut. of tis used adver- 
bially 142; particles, how construed 
298,508 sqq.; clauses 543, two interrog. 
predicates blended 628. 

Interrupted Structure 561 sqq. 

Ionic forms 36, 62, 84 sq. 


Tota subscript 46 sq. 


Jews the, how learned Greek 20 $94: : 
Jewish Greek 27 sqq. 


Language two aspects of 1; of N. T. 
history of opinions concerning 12 sqq.; 
basis of 20 sqq.; Hebrew-Aramaic 
tinge of 27 sq. ; grammatical character 
of 35 sqq. 

Latin its influence on Byzantine Greek 
28; Lat. terminations of patronymics 
95; words in N. T. Greek 103. 

Letters interchange of inAlex. orthog. 48. 

Lexicography 1. 

Lexicology 1. 


ENGLISH INDEX. 








647 


Masculine supposed to be used for the 
fem. 178. 


| Metaplasms 63. 


Middle Voice its force 252 sqq.; of 
mental objects 253; in a new signifi- 
cation 253, 254 ; with ace. offen has 
the pron. expressed 254; expressive 
of the subject’s order or permission 
254; in reciprocal sense 254; tenses 
sometimes in pass. sense 254 sq.; ac- 
tive sometimes used for 255; act. and 
mid. sometimes interchangeable 256 ; 
with €av7g 257; apparently for active 
258; mid. verbs to be distinguished 
from deponent 258 sq.; too many. 
verbs regarded as in 252. 

Moods lax use of with particles 36; use 
of in independent propositions 282 sq.; 
in dependent propositions 287 sqq. ; 
with particles of design 287 ; 
pothetical sentences 291 ; 
cles of time 296; with interrogatives 
298 ; in oratio obliqua 300 ; with éste 
301; with &y 302sqq.; after condi- 
tional clauses 303 ; in relative clauses 
306 ; in indirect questions 308 ; after 
particles of time 308. Cf. Imperative, 
Indicative, Infinitive, ete. 


in hy- 
with parti- 


Names of persons, from oxytones throw 
back the accent 51; indeclinable ac- 
cented on last 52 ; contracted 102 sq. ; 
with the art. 112 sq. 


Negation (473 sqq.) continued 487; un- 
conditional, in antithesis or followed 
by aAA@ 496; in oaths expressed by 
ei 500 ; in interrogative sentences 510. 

Negative Particles 473 sqq. ; objective 
and subjective 473; use of un 476 sq. ; 
in relative clauses with &y 480; with 
the infin. 481; with participles 482 ; 
in succession 487 sqq.; after an affirm- 
ative sentence or followed by adda 
495; two in a single clause 498 ; with 
the moods 500 sqq.; in dependent 
clauses 502; the intensive od up 505 sq.; 
in interrog. sentences 510. 

Neuter used of persons 178; for the fem. 
178; verbs connected with their pred. 
nouns by preps. 232 sq.; plur., when 
joined to a sing. and when to a plur, 
verb 514; adj. used as subst. 517; 


648 


neut. adj. or part. referring to a whole 
clause 533. 


WN. T. Grammar, Language, etc. see 
Grammar, Language ete. 


Nominative the, absolute 181, 574 ; 

titular 181 sq.; for the voc. 182; in 
supposed cir- 
cumlocution for by means of es 183 ; 
by means of éy 184. 


exclamations 183, 532 ; 


TYouns, proper with altered accent 50sq. ; 
derived from verbs 93 sq. ; In pos 93 ; 
in wa and ots 93; in povn 93; derived 
from adjectives 94 sq.; in rns 94 ; 
in otns 94; in ouyyn 95; in wa 95; in 
nptov 96; in ds 102 sq. ; proper with the 
art. 112; list of anarthrous 120sqq. ; 
used instead of the pron. 144; ante- 
cedent incorporated into the relative 
clause 164; Hebr. repetition of for 
every 174, 463 ; several plur. in Greek 
thoughsing. in English 176; of kindred 
signification, with verbs 224 ; substi- 
tuted for adjs. 236 ; listof often omitted 
590 sqq. Cf. Abstracts, Collectives, 
Gender, Number, etc. 


Number: use of plur. pronouns referring 
to a sing. noun 141; of nouns, col- 
lective use of the sing. 174; plur. of 
category 175; plur. used in Greek, 
though we use the sing. 176; dual 
does not occur in N. T. 177; use of 
plur. to signify two 177; neut. sing. 
or plur. used of persons 178; use of 
sing. to signify one 249 ; of the pred. 
differing from that of the subj. 513sqq.; 
plur. used of himself by speaker 517. 


Numerals 248 sqq. ; use of card. for ord. 
in expressing first day of week 248 ; 
ordinal, abbreviated use of 249; car- 
dinal in distributive sense 249; ar- 
rangement of in combinations 250; 
construction of with érdyw 250. 


Object gen. of 186; a single belonging 
to two verbs 521. 


Optative the, distinguished from the 
indic. and subjunc. 281; use of in 
independ. prop. 286; in depend. prop. 
288; after tva 290sq.; after ef 293; 
after a particle of time 297; after an in- 
terrogative 299 ; in the oratio obliqua 


ENGLISH INDEX. 


» 


300 sq.; with &y 303 ; in indirect quest. 
308, 310. 

Oratio Variata 577 sqq.; mingling ot 
orat. rect. and obliq. 301, 545, 579. 


Ordinals a peculiar abbreviated use of 
249. Cf. Numerals. 


Orthography variations of in MSS. 40; 
Alexandrian 43, 48. 


Parallelism antithetic 610, 639; not 
pleonastic 611; synonymous 639. 
Parataxis 630. 


Parathetic apposition 528. 

Parentheses in N. T. 562sq.; in the 
historical books 563 sq. ; in the epistles 
565. 

Paronomasia 636 sq. 

Partaking verbs of, with the gen. 200. 


Partitive gen. 200sqq., as subject 203, 
513; partitive apposition 528. 

Participle the, as a subst. takes the art. 
108, 353; as an attributive, takes or 
omits the art. 134; its verbal character 
340; use of pres. 341 sqq. 353; fut. 
340; aor. 342sq.; perf. pass. 343; 
construction of 843; to be resolved 
by a particle of time 344; with kafrot 
or kalrep 344 ; two or more in differ- 
ent relations without a copula 344; 
apparently for an infin. yet different 
345 sq. ; periphrastic construction with 
elvat 348 sq.; is it ever used for the 
finite verb 350 sqq. ; with the gen. 354 ; 
in imitation of the Hebr. infin. absol. 
354; absolutely, referring to a clause 
533 sq.; with the art. as pred. 513; 
as a means of connection between 
clauses 543; in abnormal case, par- 
ticularly the nom. 572. 


Particles the, lax use of in N.T. 36; how 
certain should be written 45 ; of design, 
how construed 287 ; of time 296, 308 ; 
in general 356 sqq. ; how classified 356 ; 
comparatively frugal use of in N.T. 
357; works on 358; position of 558; 
no ellipsis of 595. Cf. Interrogative, 
Negative ete. 

Pasor G. 5. 


Passive the, with the dat. 219; with the 
acc. 229, 260; 1st aor. used for the 


ENGLISH INDEX. 


classic 1st aor. mid. 261; perf. and 
pluperf. in mid. sense 262 ; perf. sup- 
posed to be used for perf. act. 262 ; fut., 
singular use of 262 sq. ; is it ever used 
like the Hebr. Hophal? 263; forms, 
how to be distinguished from the same 

. in the middle voice 263. 

Paul his knowledge of Greek 21; his 
doctrinal system as a guide to his 
language 98, 130; his use of the art. 
with Xpiords 118; his multiplication 
of relatives 167 ; his use of the gen. of 
more remote internal relations 188 ; 
his separation of the gen. from its 
noun 191; his use of the infin. with 
eis or mpds 329; fond of participial 
constructions 355 ; his doctrinal use 
of prepositions 360 ; his accumulation 
of prepositions 418 ; his bold arrange- 
ment of words 547; his use of paren- 
theses 565 sq.; and anacolutha 567 sq. ; 
fond of paronomasia 636. 


Perception verbs of, with the gen. 199. 


Perfect the, pass. for mid. 262 ; pass. 
* said to be used for act. 262 ; its import 

and use 270sq.; in connection with 
the aor. 272; for the aor. in narration 
272 ; how far used for the pres. 272 sq.; 
prophetic 273; supposed use of for 
pluperf. 274 ; in sense of pres. 274. 

Periodic Structure in the N. T. 545. 

Personal Pronouns multiplied in 
N. T. 143 ; occasionally omitted 148 ; 
occasional use of nouns for 144 ; loose 
reference of 145 sq. ; repetition of 147 
sq-; in nom. always emphatic 152; 
position of 155; dat. apparently su- 
perfluous 155; ) WoxH mov etc. in 
circumlocution for ? 156. 

Persons rare forms of, in regular verbs 
75 sqq. 

Pfochen Seb. 13. 


Place gen. of 207; dat. of 219; acc. of 
after verbs of motion 224; as a speci- 
fication 230. 

Pleonasm 601 sqq. ; causes of 602; for 
the most part circumstantiality or 
fulness 605 sq. ; supposed instances 
of examined 612 sqq. 

Pluperfect augment of omitted 72; 
pass, in mid. sense 262; of certain 


| 


| 


NEE 


649 


verbs. equiv. to imperf. 274; when 
expressed by the aor. 275. 


Plural the, of category 175; of certain 
nouns used for the sing. 176 ; of names 
of countries and cities 176; of nouns 
denoting a feeling etc. 176; Hebr. plur. 
maj. or excellentiae 177; for the dual 
177; neut. used of a person 178 ; used 
of himself by the speaker 517. 


Polysyndeton 519, 540. 


Position of words and clauses 546 sqq. ; 
how determined 546; works on 546sq.; 
in N. T. simple 547; in the apostolic 
benediction 549 ; of the vocative 549; 
causes of unusual549; of the predicate 
551; of the gen. before its noun 155, 
192, 551; trajection 551 sq.; hysteron 
proteron 553; irregular, of single 
words, particularly certain adverbs 
and negatives 553 sq. ; of mpd, amé ete. 
in specifications of place and time 
557 sq.; of particles and enclitic pro- 
nouns 558; supposed transposition of 
clauses 560; as affected by a regard 
to sound 636 sq. Cf. Adjectives, Ap- 
position ete. 

Positive the, with waAdov a prep. or % 
instead of the compar. 240; for the 
superl. 246. 

Possessive Pronouns 143 sqq. ; some- 
times to be taken objectively 153; 
YS.os used for 153 sq.; circumlocutions 
for 154 sq. 


Predicate the art. with 114; its connec- 
tion with the subj. 512 sqq.; a clause 
as 513; consisting of a part. with the 
art. 513; grammat. discord between 
pred. (or copula) and subj. 513 sqq. ; 
grammat. form of compound 518 ; sey- 
eral, how connected 519; several with 
a common object 521 ; indispensable 
521; extended by adjuncts 523 sqq. ; 
527 ; when placed first 551. 


Prepositions predilection for in N. T. 
32, 38,180; compound 102; connect- 
ing a (neut.) verb with its dependent 
noun 232 sq.; for adverbs 250, 423 ; 
general remarks on 358 sqq.; the 
proper sense of to be distinguished 
from the metaphorical 360; inter- 
change of 361 sq. 411 sq. ; interchange 


650 
of cases with 363; position of 363; 
with the gen. 364 sqq.; with the dat. 
384 sqq.; with the acc. 396 sqq-; the 
same in the same sentence used to de- 
note different relations 409; different 
in the same sentence 410 sq. ; kindred 
substituted for each other in parallel 
passages 411 sq.; ev and eis not used 
indiscriminately 413 sqq. ; accumula- 
tion of by Paul 418; repetition of 
419 sq.; omitted before the relative 
421 sq.; combined with adverbs 422 ; 
in circumlocutions 154, 192, 423 ; 
after compound verbs 425 sqq.; two 
blended into one 629. ° 


Present the, its force 265 ; only in ap- 


pearance for the fut. 265; for the aor. 
in narration 266 sq. 3 conjoined with 
the aor. 267; may include also a past 
tense 267; in dependent clauses ap- 
parently for the imperf. 268; perfs. 
and aors. equiv. to 274; with force of 
perf. 274. Cf. Aorist, Future, Perfect. 


Prophetic Perfect the Hebr. 273. 


Pronouns enclitic 54; indef. expressed 
sometimes by eis 117; use of in N. T. 
140 sqq.; differing in gend. or numb. 
from their noun 141; in supposed 
reference to a following noun 142; 
neuter used adverbially 142 ; personal 
and possessive 143 sqq.; repetition of 
147 sq.; demonstrative 157sqq.; rela- 
tive 163 sqq.; interrogative and in- 
definite 168 sqq. ; Hebraisms in con- 
nection with 171 sqq. ; in loose refer- 
ence 632 sq. Cf. Demonstrative, Per- 
sonal ete. 


Proper Names throw back the accent 
51; contracted forms of 102; with 
the art. 112 sqq. 

Proposition see Clause and Structure. 

Protasis 291. Cf. Apodosis. 

Prozeugma of the demonstr. pron. 162. 

Punctuation of the N. T. 55 sqq. 


Purists the, history of 12 sqq.; a criti- 
cism of their efforts 16. 


Questions rel. pron. put for interrog. in 
direct 167; the subjunc. in undeter- 
mined 285; indirect 298sq. 308, 543; 

" negative 510 sq. ; With the fut. for the 


ENGLISH INDEX. 


imperat. 315 ; brachylogy in 628. Cf. 
Interrogative. 


Quotation peculiar biblical formula of 
522. 


Redundant Structure 601 sqq. 

Reduplication 72sq.; of verbs in p 
74 sq. 

Reflexive Pronoun used in reference 
to the lst and 2d pers. 150 sq.; with 
the middle voice 257. 


| Relative Pronouns thought to refer 
sometimes to the more remote noun 
157; include the demonstrative 158 ; 
*attraction with 163sq.; agree some- 
times with following noun 166 ; for 
interrogative 167 ; multiplied by Paul 
167; before whole clauses 168; not 
used for demonstrative 168. 


Relative Clauses position of 167; use 
of 542 sq. 

Revelation book of, its irregularities of 
style 534. 

Rhetoric (stylistics) of N. T. 1 sq. 

Ruling verbs of, with the gen. 206. 


Schema kar’ etoxjy 520. 

Sentence sce Clause, and Structure. 

Septuagint its Greek style 31 sq. 37 sqq. 

Singular (the distributive) for the plural 
174. 

Smelling verbs of, with the gen. 203. 


Structure of Sentences: of a simple 
512 sqq. ; of compound 518sq.; by 
extension of subj. or pred. 523 sqq. ; 
their connection 537 sqq. ; asyndeton 
537; polysyndeton 519, 540; position of 
words and clauses in 546 sqq. ; inter- 
rupted (parenthetic) structure 561sqq.; 
broken and heterogeneous. (anacolu- 
thon 566, oratio variata 577) 566 sqq.; 
defective (ellipsis 580, aposiopesis 599) 
580 sqq.; redundant (pleonasm 601, 
blended 605, circumstantiality 605, 
fulness 609) 601 sqq.; condensed and 
expanded (breviloquence 619, con- 
structio praegnans 621, attraction 625, 
hendiadys 630) 619 sqq.; irregularities 
of relating to single words (hypallage) 
631 sqq.; regard to sound in (parono- 


ENGLISH INDEX. 


masia 636, annominatio 638, paral- 
lelism 639, verse 640) 636 sqq. Cf. 
Clauses, Asyndeton, Attraction, Posi- 
tion, etc. 
Style (stylistics) in N. T. 1 sq. 31, 33, 
35, 37 sq.; of individual writers 4, 29, 
» 88, 89,118, 546sq. Cf. Paul etc. 


Subject the, in relation to the art. 115; 
gen. of 186; relation to the sentence 
512 sqq.; a partitive gen. may be used 
for 203, 513; relation of copula and 
predicate to 513 sqq.; compound 518; 
one rendered prominent 519, 520; 
may be implied 521 sq.; extension of 
523 sqq.; wanting 588, 631; sudden 
change of 631 sq. 

Subjunctive the future 75, 86; dis- 
tinguished from the indic. and the 
optat. 281; in independent proposi- 
tions 285 sq.; in dependent proposi- 
tions 287 sqq.; in hypothetical sen- 
tences 291 sq.; after particles of time 
compounded with &y 297, 308; after 
interrogatives 298; after ste 301; in 
relative clauses with &y 307; with tva 
for the imperat. 315; with iva for the 
infin. 334 sqq. 


Substantives see Nouns. 


Superlative the, circumlocution for 246; 
Hebr. modes of expressing 246 sq. ; 
strengthened by mdvtwy 248. 


Synizesis 622. 
Synonymes 611. 


Syntax peculiarities of, few in later and 
N. T. Greek 27; 36sqq. 


Technical Termsreligious inN.T.35. 


Tenses rare forms in 73 sqq.; how far 
interchanged 264 ; import and use of 
the pres. 265 sq.; imperfect 268 sq. ; 
perfect 270 sq. ; aorist 275 sq.; force of 
in the moods 281 ; future 279 sq. ; dif- 
ferent connected 280sq. Cf. Aorist ete. 


Thinking of verbs expressing take the 
gen. 205. 








651 


Time gen. of 207; dat. of 218 ; acc. of 
229 sq.; particles of, how construed © 
296 sq., with ay 308. 


Touching laying hold of, verbs of take 
the gen. 201. 

Trajection (transposition) of words 513 
sqq.; of clauses 560. 

Transition from a participial constr. to 
a finite verb 573; from é7 to the 
(acc. with) infin. 573; from a relative 
constr. to a personal 579 ; from oratio 
obliq. to rect. and vice versa 579 ;,from 
the sing. to the plur. and the reverse 
580. Cf. Structure of sentences. 


Verbs augm. and redupl. of 70 sqq.; rare 
forms in tenses and persons of regular 
73 sqq.; in verbs in we and irregular 
verbs 78 sqq.; list of defective 82 sqq. ; 
later forms of not always used in N. T, 
90; same forms may come from dif- 
ferent 91; derivative 91; compound 
100; decomposite 102; intransitives 
with ace. of thing 227; neut. used 
transitively 251, 263; compounded with 
prepositions, how construed 425 sqq. ; 
with a&mré 427; with dvd 428; with 
éytt 429; with é« 429; with év 429; 
with eis 430; with émi 430; with dd 
431; with card 431; with ped 432; 
with mapé 432; with mep{ 432; with 
7p6432 ; with mpds 432 ; with cvy 433 ; 
with iré 483; with brép 433 ; in cir- 
cumlocutions for adverbs 467 sq. Cf. 
Active ete. ; Tenses etc. 


Verbal substantives 93 sqq. (cf. nouns) ; 
adjectives 96 sq. 


Verses found in N. T. 640 sq. 


Vocative use of nom. for 182 ; most fre- 
quently without #183; position of 549. 


Voices see Active, Middle, Passive. 
Vorst J. 14. 


Words sce Derivation, Position, Paro- 
nomasia etc. 


Wyss Caspar 5. 


Zeugma 622. 


I INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND FORMS. 


The Figures refer to Pages. 


a privative, intensive, formative 100. 

-a, -a in the gen. 60. 

a in forms of 2d aor. 73. 

& for o¢ & 142. 

*Aapar 67. 

"ABid accent 52. 

&yabvepyety 26. 

Gyabono.ety 25. 

Gyabbs mpds Tt and e¥s Tt 363. 

Gyabouvpyetv 25, 101. 

&yabwovrvn 25. 

GyarAay 24, 

ayarAlacis 25. 

ayavaxrecy constr. of 232. 

&ydrn without art. 120; 0eod or Xpior0v 185. 

“Ayap, 75 179. 

&yyeAAw forms of 82. 

tyyeAos art. with 124; &yyeAo and oi ayy. 
124. 

Gyeveaddyntos 25, 26. 

Tu ayia 176,177; H Gyn aylwy 246; of 
Giyior 35, 234; a&yiov, 7d 592. 

Gytacuds 93. 

ayidtns 25. 

&yvicer Oar 252. 

&yvoety év 629. 

ayvorns 25. 

&yvuu forms of 82. 

ayopd without art. 121. 

aydpato. accent 53 ; sc. quépat 590. 

@yptéeAatos 25. 

aypés without art. 121. 

&yw forms of 82; &ye with plur. subject 
516; ay. Twi 215; &ywper 251. 

dywyiCouat 260. 

adcApds supposed ellipsis of 593. 

adicetoOar 254, 

aSporis 52 sq. 

def position of 553. 

aeTds 22, 

652 


&Cuua 176. 

-a(w verbs in 92. 

&0Gos ad 7. 180, 197. 

Atyurtos always has art. 112. 

aiua 30; aiua exxéewv 33; afuara 177. 

aiuaterxuvola 25, 26, 99. 

aivery with dat. 536. 

-aivw aor. of verbs in 75; verbs in 92. 

aipelv Sc. Tas aykvdpas 594. 

aipeti(w 26. 

aipéw forms of 82; aipodua: 253. 

aioxvvouat with part. and with infin. 846. 

aiveiy constr. of 227. 

aitnua 24. 

aixuarwrevey 25. 

aixmarwricew 25. 

alaves 1763 of ai@y. Tay aidy. 247. 

ai@vios inflec. 69. : 

akalpws 463. 

dkatdpitos 236. 

axuhy 464. 

&KoAovbety omicw 214, 234. 

aKouTicw 26. 

axovw forms of 82; constr. of 199 sq. 847; 
signific. of 274. 

axpoBvotos, axpoBvatia 24, 99. 

&Kpoywviaios 236. 

aAdAnTOS 23, 97. 

dAelpery constr. of 227. 

GAeKTopopwria 25. 

GAEKTWp 23. 

*AAckas 25. 

Anew 22. 

GAAd distinguished from 8é 441 sq.; in 
abrupt transitions 442; od ... &rad 
442; arr’ # 442; not used for oop 
451; nor for ef uf 451; nor for sane 
451; after a single neg. 495; before 
apod. 541; aaad ye 559; GAA’ fa 620. 

aAAdooew constr. of 206. 


GREEK INDEX. 


‘ 


dAAopuat forms of 82. 

&AAos in apposition 529; position of 548; 
omitted 595. 

&AAoT pioetioxotos 25, 99. 


Gua 470. 
Guaptdvw, anaptéw forms of 82; constr. of 
233. 


auaptia without art. 120. 

audt does not occur in N. T. 372. 

-av for act in perf. 76; ay in-infin. omits 1 
subscr. 47. 

ay force and use of 302 sqq.; omission of 
282, 305 sq. 307, 333, 595; for édy 291; 
in relative clauses 306; in indirect 
question 308. 

avd with the acc. 398; constr. of verbs 
compounded with 428. 

avdBa 79. 

avdrykn 30. 

avdbeua 24, 32. 

avabepaticew 33. 

dvarawvdw 26. 

avakdumrew 251. 

avakeia Oat 23. 

avakAtvew 23. 

avaveotobat 263. 

avatiws 463. 

avdmecat 74. 

avanlrrey 23. 

avarrpepew 251, 469. 

avdotacis vexpav 188. 

avdoreua 24. 

dvaréAAew 251. 

avatlOnur 253. 

avarodal 176. 

avéAeos 100. 

aveTralaxuyTos 236. 

&vev 471. 

dvéxouat augm. of 72; forms of 83. 

avip (povet’s etc.) 30; without art. 122; 
&vdpes in addresses 610. 

Guoptdvew éuapriay 225. 

avOpwmrdperkos 25, 

aviornut orépuativt 33 ; avaora 79; dvacrds 
redundant? 608. 

avolyw augm. of 72; forms of 83; ay. Tods 
dpbaruwovs etc. 33; yAdooay 622. 

dvduws 463. 

-avos ending of patronym. nouns 95. 

avratddoua 25. 

avtamokpiverdat 25. 

avri of price 206; with the gen. 364; constr. 
of verbs compounded with 429. 





653 


&ytixpus 42. 

avttAutpoy 25. 

*Avtitas 103. 

&vrAnpa 93. 

avdyaov or dvdyaov 43. 

averepos 69. 

dvauimynokew constr. of 205, 226 sq. 

ayTirAeye 23. 

&f1os, afsody constr. of 206. 

amdyyoua 253. 

amalSeutos 96. 

amavtdw forms of 83. 

dmavrnois 24. ¢ 

amrapdBatos 25. 

amapticuds 24. 

amelpartos 97. 

ameAmicew 24. 

amepiomaotws 463. 

améxw 275; amréxeoOu constr. of 427. 

amé in alleged circumloc. for the gen. 193 ; 
with verbs of eating, taking etc. 199; 
with verbs of fulness 201; meaning of 
etc. 364 sq. 369 sq.; distinguished from 
éx 364; distinguished from trdé 369; 
distinguished from rapa with passives 
370; with verbs of receiving etc. 370 ; 
constr. of verbs compounded with 427 
sq.; trajection of with the gen. of 
place? 557; amd &rvwOev 603; am pri 
422; amd mépvot 422; ard mpwt 422; 
amd téTe 422; ard paxpdbev 603 ; amd 
bépovs 423; dard pias 423, 591; amd 
fikpov Ews peydAov 18. 

amoBAeéretv eis 622. 

amoypaper Oat 254. 

arodisoua 253. 

amoévjorew constr. of 210, 226, 227, 428. 

amrocablornu augm. of 72. 

amroxeparl ew 25. 

drroxplyouat 23, 253, 261. 

amoxreivw forms of 83; signif. of 253. 

amoxvet and amoxver 88, 

amorktrw 83. 

amoAauBdvew constr. of 428. 

amdéAAuut forms of 83. 

"ATmroAAds 62, 102. 

GroAvoua 253. 

amomlarrew constr. of 427. 

amoppimrew 251. 

amocracta 24. 

amootéAAew 594. 

amoorepeit@a with gen. 196; signif. of 254. 

amotdacer Oat 23. 


654 GREEK 

aroTdéuws 463, 

&mraioros 97, 

amrécaro 90. 

%pa meaning and use of 444 sq.; before 
apod. 541, 542; position of 558; dpa 
ody 445, 558. 

dpa interrog. 510. 

dpyds, -n, -ov, 24, 68. 

apytpia 176. 

dpéoxeww constr. of 233. 

dveoxcla accent 51, 

7a apistepd 176, 

Gpxeto a constr. of 232. . 

cipveta Oat 259. 

Gporpiay 24. 

cprd(w forms of 83. 

ipoevay 66. 

&pony 22. 

"Aprenas 102. 

"Aptéuwy inflec. 64, 

uproy dayety 33. 

épxh without art. 124; Ti apxhy altogether 
464. 

-apxns 61. 

~apxos 61 sq. 

&pxowat constr. of 346; alleged pleonasm 
of 612 sq. ; peculiar use of 633. 

*Acia art. with 112, 

aomdCouct 259, 260. 

dorépay 66. 

dovoxeiv with gen. 196, 

&oparjv 66, 69. 

dopartlecba robs mddas els etc. 622. 

areviCew 24, 100. 

ariudlerOat 252, 263. 

avdevrety 23, 

avédvw forms of 83, 251. 

apa ellipsis of 591, 

avToxaTdxpiros 236, 

av7ds in loose reference 145 Sq. 632; sub- 
Joined to the subject 147 sq. 519; sub- 
joined to the relative 148; repeated 149; 
kal avtds for 6s149; unemphatic? 150; 
6avrdés 112; with dat. 150; abrés eyd 
153; abtod or abtod? 15] Sq.; avrod 
before the governing subst. 155; in 
apposition 530; adzd rodTo adv. 142. 

&pedpdy 95. 

apiiw 45. 

Apinut, dpiw, apew 81, 

agirrdvat constr. of 427, 

apopay els 622, 


INDEX. 


dpumvdw 26. 

’Axaita art. with 112. 

&XElpoToinros 236. , 

&xpt or axpis ? 42; constr. of 297, 471. 


Baad, 7 179. 

Baduds 22. 

Batvw forms of 79. 
Baddytioy form of 43. 


| BaAAew 251 sq. 


Barri¢w constr. of 216, 217, 412; mid. 254, 
255, 621; Barr. twa ets Tt 622. 

Bamricua 25, 35, 93. 

Bamtionds 621. 

Bapéw 24; forms of 83. ‘ 

BactAedew constr. of 180, 206. 

Bacirwroa 24, 95. 

Bacraivw forms of 83; constr. of 223. 

Baros, 7 36; 6 63. 

BeBala 69. 

BeuBpavas 22: 

BnOaB8apa decl. 61. 

ByOcatda indecl. 61. 

BynOpayy 52; indecl. 61. 

BiBAapldioy 24, 96. 

B.dw forms of 84; xpdvov 226, 

BAdrrew constr. of 227. 

BAaordvw forms of 84; 251. 

Bracpnuety constr. of 222, 629, 

Brérey amd 39; 71 223; els 233. - 

Boay constr. of 212. 

BooKerOat 252. 

BovaAevecOa 254, 

BovAount aug. of 70; éBovaduny without 
ay 283. ' . 

Bovvds 22, 

Bpaduths 52 sq. 

Bpexe 23. 


TadiAaia art. with 112. 

‘youew forms of 84; mid. 254, 

yauionw 92. 

yduot 176, 

yap origin and signification of 445 sq.; in 
explanations 446, and going before 
447 ; in rejoinders 446; in questions 
447 ; repeated 447sq. ; not to be taken 
for but 453; nor for therefore 454 ; nor 
for although 454; nor for on the contrary 
454; nor for nevertheless 454; nor as 
a mere copula 454 ; sometimes equiv. 
to d€ 452, 456; position of 558; in- 
troducing parenth. 562. . 


GREEK INDEX.. 


Te€onuavy, or -vet 52. 
yeAdw forms of 84. 
yéevec and 7@ yéver 120. 
yeveown 24, 176. 
yevynuata 23, 25. 
yeveoOa constr. of 36, 198; daydrov 33. 
yy without art. 120; ellipsis of 592. 
ynpdoKw 92. 
yhpe dat. 64. 
ylryvouct forms of 84; construed with eis 
183 sq.; with gen. 195sq.; with dat. 
210sq.; éyévero with acc. and inf. 323; 
never used periphrastically 350; with 
pred. adj. 515; ellipsis of 586; kal 
éyéveto pleonastically 608. 
yweokey signific. 263; &vdpa 18. 
yAGéoou 32; ellipsis of 591; yAwooats Aa- 
Aeiy 594. 
yAwoodrouoy 24, 94, 
yvnowos inflec. 69. 
yoyyuw 22. 
yovuTretety Tiva 210. 
Toayo0a indecl. 61. 
Td lepa ypduuata 177. 
ai ypapal 177. 
ypapw in the preterite 278. 
ypnyop@ 26, 92. 
yuurnrevey 25. 5 
yuvaicdpiov 96. 
“yovh ellipsis of 190. 


Saluwy, Saudvia 23, 239. 

Aavid spelling of 44. 

dé meaning and use of 441, 443; distin- 
guished from &AAd 441 sq.; wev... d€ 
441,443; od (uh)...5€442; ottw... 
5€442; nal... 5€ 443; 5€... nal 443; 
never means therefore 452; nor for 
452; noris it amere particle of transi- 
tion 453; as related to yap 456 ; after 
a single neg. 495, 539 sq.; position of 
558; introducing parenth. 562. 

Sevyparicew 25, 26. 

Setmrvos, 6 65. 

Sexatovy 24. 

deta Without art, 122; 7a detid 176. 

SeftorAaBety 102. 

de~oAdBos 101. 

Seouat constr. of 198. 

Sepudrivos 26. 

deouds plur. forms of 63. 

Sedrepov 250. 

? 





devrepdmpwros 100. 

54 with imperat. 313. 

Annas 103. 

did with gen. 377 sq. 423 sq.; with verbs of 
praising etc. 378; denoting the causa 
principalis ? 378; used of time 380; 
with acc. 398 sq. ; in circumlocutions 


423 ; construction of verbs compounded 
with 431. 


SiaBeBardw 253. 

5:dBoAos without art. 124. 

Side se. Toy Bloy 593. 

diaOjKat 177. 

Siadhkny SiatiOecOar 225. ° 

diaxoveiy 593. 

diadAaooew constr. of 206. 

SiatapatpiBH 102. 

diamrAety with acc. 431, 

SiatrovetoOa 23. 

Siamopever@a constr. of 431. 

Siackopmicew 25. 

diarpiBew sc. tov xpdvov 593. 

SiddoKxew tii 223; ey 227. 

d(5wus forms of 78, 79, 84; constr. of. 180, 
197, 198. 

Sievetpe 102. 

diépxeoOat with acc. and with did 431. 

Sixasoxpicla 25, 99. 

Sixaos ex wlatews 136. 

Sixasoovyn 32; etc. 35; without art. 120; 
Ocod 186; micrews 186. 

5:6 445. 

didtt 445, 

Siopvocew 594. 

dupay etc. 17, 77; with acc. 204 sq. 

Side 30; forms of 84. 

didiw 84. 

doxety alleged pleonasm of 612 sq. 

SoArdw 26. 

dduos ellipsis of 592. 

Séta 32; 4 108. 

dpaxun ellipsis of 592. 

divawa aug. of 70; forms of 76, 84; with 
infin. 321, 327, 333 ; used absolutely 
590, 594; alleged pleonasm of 613. 

Suvduers 32. 

Suvaudw 26. 

duvn 76. 

dvo inflec. 64; with plur. 177 ; dv0 Sto 249. 

duai 64. 

Svopual 176. 

Sdw, divw forms of 84. 


656 


Swexdpuaos 100. 
507 78. 

daua 23. 

Swpedy 230. 

5éon 79. 


édy sometimes &v, never Hv 291; constr. of 
291, 293, 294 sq.; éay... ef 296; for 
%y after relatives 310; éav uh in oaths 
500 ; position of 550; supposed ellipsis 
of 541, 595. 

éavtod 150; éavrdy and éavt@ with the 
mid. 257. 

eyvydunoa 84. 

éyyts constr. of 195, 471; éyyts eivat 
465. 

évyeipouat 252. 

eyevnOny 84. 

eyratvia 176. 

eyraviCew 33. 

eyxade constr. of 203, 431. 

éyxevTpiCew constr. of 430. 

eykparevouct 25. 

éypawa equiv. to ypdpw 278. 

éy# never unemphatic 152 sq. 

dec a real imperf. indic. 283. 

eSdxapey 84. 

€PeA0Opynokela 100. 

e6vixos 463. 

€000n 44. 

-et in 2d pers. sing. pass. for y 75 sq. 

ef with subjunc. 36 ; constr. of 291 sq. ; and 
édy distinguished 295, 296; with ind. 
fut. 300 ; for émef 448 ; denoting a wish 
448 ; in oaths 500; supposed ellipsis 
of 595; in direct quest. 508, 509 ; ap- 
parently for 87: 542; €i dpa 445; €f 
dé uh ye 583,605; ei cat distinguished 
from ka) <i 444; ei un 478 sq. 633, rule 
for use of 479, not used affirm. 500; e/ 
ob 478 sq., rule for use of 479. 

-era etc. in Ist aor. opt. 76. 

elye 448. 

cidéa 48. 

etiw know, forms of 84; perf, 274, 

ciSwAoAdtpns 100. 

cidwAoAatpela 26. 

eldwAdOuToy 26, 100. 

eiAlogewy 22. 

eiut forms of 79; with part. in periphrasis 
348 sq.; with advbs. 465; omission 
of 584; with eis 183sq.; with gen. 


GREEK INDEX. 


195 sq.; with dat. 210; with pred. 
adj. 515; éori with infin. 320. 

-ervos adjectives in 99. 

eimecy forms of 85; fut. 279, 280; elpyre 
sc. 6 eds 522; &pn in direct discourse 
558 ; ellipsis of 598; eimoy 22, accent 
51. 

elrep 448. 

e(rws with ind. fut. 300. 

eipqyvn Oeov 186. 

-eis plural ending 64. 

eis never és 52 ; in supposed circumlocution 
for the nom. 183; as a sign of the dat. ? 
212; of the acc.? 228, 527; in cir- 
cumlocutions 228, 424,527; with infin. 
how rendered 329; with acc. 396 sq. ; 
used for év 2414; with (ew, nabicerOau 
etc. 415; eis tpis 422 ; constr. of verbs 
compounded with 430. 

eis and 6 cis 116; eis as an indef. art. (rts) 2 
117; for mp&ros 32, 248; efs ka ets 
249; cis ...00172; eis... Kaleis173; 
position of 548. 

eisépxeo Oat constr. of 427 ; eis Tov dopo 18. 

claw, ow 52. 

dra 540; before apod. 541. 

etre 440. 

éx in circumlocutions 1935 424; useof with 
gen. 366 sq.; distinguished from &é 
364; with verbs of fulness 201 ; never 
put for évy 368; constr. of verbs com- 
pounded with 429; in local attraction 
629. : 

exaoTos always without art. 111; with plur. 
pred. 516. 

éxatdvrapxos 61. 

éxBddrAew zw 603. 

exyauicew 102. 

exe? for exetoe 471. 

éxeivos With noun and art. 110; referring 
to the nearest subject 157; position 
of 157, 162; repeated 160. 

éxetoe for exe? 472. 


€lTe...'. 


exepdnoa 87. : 
éxkakerv 25. 

éxxAnola without art. 122. 

exAeyeoOa ev Tit 226, 

of éxAextol 35, 234. 

exuuKTnpicerw 25. 

éxmarat 24, 422. 


> 


éxalrrei constr. of 427. 


> 


ex@rAhooerOa constr. of 232. 


GREEK INDEX. 


expata 87. 

ExpuBov 88. 

extévera 25. 

€xTevas 25, 463. 

extds ef uh 605. 

extpemew 251, 429, 

éxxéw forms of 85; éxxe® fut. 77. 

exTpwua 25, 

exxuvew 24. 

*EAaidy or "EAady ? 182. 

édaknoa 88. 

édaxiotdétepos 69. 

eAcdw 85. 

éAceivds 99. 

éAeéw forms of 85; constr. of 233. 

ZAcos gend. 66. 

éAevOepovy constr. of 196, 197. 

éAcvoouat 86. 

éAxw forms of 86. 

EdAAnvicew, EAAnVioTHs 28, 94. 

éamicey constr. of 233, 321, 331, 410. 

éuds used objectively 153. 

éumopeverOa constr. of 222, 429. 

gumpoodey 471. 

év and Beth essentiae184,513 ; hebraistically 
for acc. of object ? 226; in alleged 
circumloc. for gen. 193; alleged sign 
of the dat. 217; év Xpict@ 359, 360, 
888, 390; with dat. in local use 384; 
temporal 385; fig. uses 386 sq. ; ap- 
parently with gen. 384; év 6, év rolTw 
387; distinguished from 8a 389; éy 
dvépart twos 390 ; used for eis ? 4138q. 
415; originally identical with eis 416; 
in adverbial and other circumlocu- 
tions 424; construction of verbs com- 
pounded with 429. 

@vatos 43, 

evdtoucba Xpiordy 30. 

éveyras 90. 

évexa forms of 43; with infin, 329, 

évéraita 88. 

évepyety 258, 430. 

évéxew sce. xdAov ? 593. 

évt 80, 423. 

evvevhkovta 43. 

évveds or eveds 44, 

évoxos constr. of 180, 202, 210, 213. 

évtaAua 25. 

éyred0ey looking forwards 161. 

évtpéreo Oc constr. of 221, 429, 

évrpupay constr. of 430. 


83 


657 

évémioy 2143; Tov Geod 32. 

evwtlCeoOut 33. 

etdryery iw 603. 

etavaréAAey 102. 

efdmiva 24. 

ekaorpdmrelD 102. 

étexpeuero 87. 

etéveuce 91. 

eEepxeoOa ex Tis dapvos Tivds 33. 

e& ov whence 141 sq. 

efouodoyeto Oa 102; constr. of 30, 32, 209. 

ekoyv elvar 24. 

eEopxl ew 102. 

ekovderdw 26. 

étouOevety 25. 

etuvicew 24. 

dw 471. 

eta@oev 90. 

Zoixa 274. 

emaryyeAlat 177. 

emayyéAAcoOat With infin. 331. 

émawvéeow 86. 

émawéw forms of 86; constr. of 203. 

erata 88. 

eraoxvvoun augm. of 73; constr. of 221. 

émdy 297. 

émdvw 102, 250. 

’"Etagppas 103. 

érel 448 ; with indic. pres. 283. 

érel &pa 445. 

éwedy 448. 

ére:dnmep 448. 

ered wy 480. 

éreimep 448. 

érerta meta TOVTO 603. 

éméxeiva accent 52. 

emexteiverOu constr. of 431. 

Zreua equiv. to méumw 278. 

émevduTns 25. 

éméxew 593. 

émnpedew constr. of 221. 

émt with gen. 374; with dat. 392; ep @ 
394; ém 7G dvdu. Twos 393 ; with ace. 
407 sq.; with different cases in the 
same sentence 409; émi tpis 422; in 
circumlocutions with gen. and dat. of 
abstracts 425; constr. of verbs com- 
pounded with 430. 

émiyauBpevery 26. 

émiOuuery constr. of 204, 430. 

émixadovmat 253, 263, 430. 

émAapuBdverOat constr. of 202, 430 sq. 


658 


emlAnogpovh 93. 

értopxéw forms of 86. 
émtovatos 97, 236. 

éwitodey constr. of 204, 430. 
emimo@ntos 236. 

emoxiacew constr. of 431. 
ewig TéAAe 23. 

émoroaAat of a single ep. 176. 
emia tpeperOar 26, 251. 
erictpoph 26. 

érirade accent 52. 

émiTiOévat Tivi SC. Tas Xetpas 593. 
emipavat 89. 

emipavoer 90. 

émipepewy constr. of 431. 
emtxetpeiy pleonastic ? 613. 


emovpavia, Th 235. 

épydCoua 72, 222, 259. 

épyoy as a pleonasm ? 615. 

epevyecOa 23. 

épnuos accent 52; inflection 69 ; 7 106. 

éplOcia, épideta 51, 94. 

épts inflection 65. 

‘Epuas 103. 

epsnOny, €p5€Onv 85. 

épxouat forms of 86; epxerat Spa, Wva 339 ; 
6 épxouevos 341. 

€pwrayv 22, 30, 32, 335. 

écOnots 23. 

éo0iw forms of 86; constr. of 180, 198 sq. 

écOw 23, 86. 

éotavat 78. 

éoxaros without art. 131. 

écxdtws 463; exew 26. 

éow not efow 52; 471, 472. 

ecatepos 69. 

€repos in appos. 530; érépw, év 592. 

ért in comparison 240; position of 553. 

€roimos accent 52; with aor. infin. 332. 

éToiuws 463. 

ev augm. of verbs beginning with 71. 

evayyedl(e 24, 35; aug. of 71; constr. of 
180, 213, 223, 227, 229, 260. 

edayyéAtoy Tod Xpiorov 186. 

evapéatws 463. 

evdoxeiv 25, 101, 212, 222, 232, 

ev0éws position of 554. 

eVOvuws 463. 

evmepiatatos 236. 

evdoyetv 32. 

evpauny 86. 

edpicxw forms of 86; constr. of 219; edpl- 
oxeoOa for elva:? 616. 


GREEK INDEX. 


evoxnuwy 23. 

Etuxos accent 51. 

evxapioTety 23, 222. 

eVxeoOm aug. of 71; 212, 259. 

-evw verbs in 92. 

epdmak 422 

épn in direct disc. 558 ; omitted 598. 

epdaca 90. 

epide 45. 

épiotrdvat constr. of 427. 

éxOés 24, 45; cf. 48. 

éxw with gen. 202; with infin. 333; év 
yaotpl ex. 594; mw exe 594. 

-éw verbs in with e in the fut. 77. 

ewynodunv 70. 

€ws and €ws ov constr. 296; éws &y 308; 
€ws as a prep. 470; 
471. 


ews upti, wére etc. 


(dw forms of 86; constr. of 226, 227. 
GijAos, TO 65. 

Zynvas 102. 

Chow 86. 

(nteiv Wuxi 33. 

(wh aidvios 138. 


# in comparisons 240 sq.; 4}... 4 «at 440; 
never for «at 440, yet cf. 441; co- 
ordinate with ore 491 sq. ; after neg. 
508 ; in questions 509; repeated 519; 
supposed ellipsis of 595sq. 

nyouat ws 602. 

hrynots 24. 

hia 87. 

Hew 87, 274. 

fjAtos anarthrous 119 sq. 

hudptnoa 82. 

Hucda 80. 

jmets never unemphatic 153. 

HmeAAe 70. 

juepa ellipsis of 590; ijépa kal juépa 463. 

nulon, -€a, -era 65. 

jmov inflection 64. 

nvika constr. of 296; jvika &y 297. : 

hta 87. 

jpeuos 70. 

-nptov substantives in 96. 

npxdunv 86. 

‘Hpwdiards 95. 

hs for jo0a 80. 

Hto.... % 440. 

ATTdouca 260. 

HTw 79. 


GREEK INDEX. 659 


Hore 81. 
Axos, Td 65. 


@dAacoa without art. 121. 

OdAAw 87. 

OduBos, gen. OduBou 66. 

Oavarnpdpos 101. 

Odvaros 29; without art. 122. 

Oavudcew constr. of 232. 

Ocdopat 259. 

DeatpiCew 25, 26. 

OedrvevaTos 96. 

6éAw with inf. 37, 321, 327, 333; Odaw # 
malle 241 ; not for 7#@cAov284; followed 
by subjunc. 285, 595 ; iva 336 sq.; used 
adyerbially ? 467; pleonastic? 612 sq. 


Oeds, Océ Vocative 63 ; without art. 121 sq. ; | 
| tornut forms of 78, 79, 87; signif. of 252; 


ellipsis of 522, 588. 
Oeootuyns 23; accent 53. 
@evdas 103. 
OAtis, OAtis 50. 
Opickos accent 50. 
OpiauBevew 23, 251. 
Oupds apyiis 611. 
6vpa without art. 123; in plur. 176. 
Oupeds 23. 
-@w verbs in 92. 


-1a nouns in 95. 

 idopat 259. 

idé and We 49. 

Yios for poss. pron. 153sq.; added to a 
pers. pron. 154; position of 548 ; idia, 
Kat’ idfay 591; Ta Yia 592. 

ieplooa 24. 

‘lepixe 67. 

fepoovAnua 25. 

fepoupyetv constr. of 222. 

‘Iepovcadyu form and inflec. 67 sq.; use of 
art. with 112; plur. 176. 

-((@ fut. of verbs in 75; deriv. of verbs in 
91 sq. 

inut forms of 80. 

"Ingots inflection 66. 

ixeola 24. 

iAdoxeoOa constr. of 227. 

iAaorhpiov 96, 592. 

fAews 22. 

indtia 176; ellipsis of 591. 

iuatiCw 26. 

iue(pec@at 101 ; constr. of 204. 

tva 449; with ind. pres. 36; constr. of 
287 sq.; with subjunc. for imperat. 315 ; 


fe 


weakened 36, and for infin. 334 sqq.; 
John’s use of 338 sq. 461; is it used 
exBaticas ? 457 sq. ; iva TANpwOh 461; 
apparently for ésre or és after adject. 
461 ; for 671? 462; supposcd ellipsis 
of 285, 595; in breviloquence 620, 
GAN’ iva 620 ; iva th wherefore 169, se. 
yev. 586. 

-wos adjectives in 99. 

lopddvns art. with 112. 

*Iovda use of art. with 114. 

*"Iovdaia art. with 112. 

toa used adverbially 177. 

isdyyeAos 236. 

Yoos accent 52; toa adv.177 ; constr. of 209. 

ictavw 87. 

iotaw 78. 


perf. 274. 
‘IraAla art. with 112. 
‘Iwojjs inflection 66. 


Kabdmrtw 257. 

Kadapi¢ew constr. of 197, 

kadapés constr. of 197. 

Ka? eis 249. 

KdOn 81. 

Kdé0nuca forms of 81; constr. of 431. 

Kabnuepivds 26. 

KadiCew constr. of 415, 431. 

Kd0ov 81. 

Kadds 26; Kabas... oftws 440. 

kai 434 sqq. ; connecting numerals 250 ; 
connecting diff. tenses 280; at the 
beginning of an apodosis 286, 438; 
connecting imperatives 311; distin- 
guished from te 434 ; uses of 435 sq. ; 
with interrogatives 437; adversative 
437 ; epexegetic 437 ; meaning espec- 
ially ? 438; after a particle of time 
438; nal... Kai439; in comparisons’ 
440, 603; never for # 440; nal... dé 
443 ; kal ei distinguished from ef xaf 
444; Kal yap 448; Kad ov, ral un 493; 
in schema kar’ ekoxfv 520 sq. 539 sq.; 
transposed ? 560; introducing parenth, 
562; anacoluthic use of one for two 
576; «al éyévero Hebraistically 608. 

katpés Without art. 124. 

Kaiodpera art. with 112. 

kaltot, Kalmep with part. 344; kaltorye 
444, 

karla without art. 120. 


660 GREEK INDEX. 


Kane, eri tiva 410, 593; Kadretoba for 
elvat? 615; kadéow fut. 77. 

KaAoTrotety 25, 26; constr. of 222. 

Kaupuvery 24, 

Kay vel certe 584. 

Kava accent 52; indecl. 61. 

Kapadoxeiv 101. 

kapdia as a circumlocution for the pers. 
pron. 156; evdeta 32. 

kapmds KolAius 33; dapvos 33 ; xetdewy 33. 

kata with acc. of pers. pron. equiv. to 
poss. pron. 154; in circum. for gen. 
193; with gen. 381 sq.; with acc. 
400 sq.; in local sense 400; in tem- 
poral 401; in distributive 401; figu- 
ratively 401 sq..5 xa@ éavrdy 401; in 
circumlocutions 425; ka SAouv 425 ; 
constr. of verbs compounded with 431. | 

KkataBa 79. 

‘ KaTayvumt aug. of 70, 

KaTaxanooua 87. 


Kataxalw 87. 

KaTaxavxac0at constr. of 208, 432, 
kataxpivey constr. of 210. 
KaTahauBdvw 253. 

KaTaAcirw 87. 

KaTaAl0d lew 102. 

KaTdAvua 25, 93. 

Kardyuéis 94. 

KaTamoyvTiCew 24, 

KaTacTOAy 23. 

KaTeay@ 70. 

Kkatéatay 70. ' 
Kateldwros 236. 

Katévaytt 102. 

KaTevdtioy 102. 

Karéxew eis 594. 

KaTnyopeiyv constr. of 180, 203, 260, 431. 
Katép@wua 25. 

KaTeTepos 69. 

kavxac0a constr. of 222, 233. 
kelpey 257. 

Keképacuat 87. 

KéeKTN Ua 274. 

KeAevery with infin. 332, 336. 
eis kevoy 5923 Kev@s 463. 
Kepauicds 99. 

kepdyvuut 87. 

KepaAls 23. 

xépas inflection 65. 

xepdalvw 87. 

Khpvt or rijpvt ? 50. 

Kwéowat 252. 


kAaiw 87; constr. of 222, 

Kav Toy &proy 35. . 
KkAavow 87. 

kAels inflection 65. 

KAelew Tt amd Tivos 622. 

KAedrras 103. 


| KAémtw 87. 


KrAapw 87. 

KAnpovopety constr. of 200. 
of KAnTol 35. 

KAI Bavos 22. 

kAtua acc. 50. 

kAwdpioy 96. 

éx KotAlas untpds 33. 
kommac@at 267 ; perf. 274. 
Kowwvery constr. of 200. 
KoAAuBiorhs 94. 

KoAoooal spelling 44. 
KoAmrot 176. 

Kopdotoy 24. 

xdopuos inflection 68. 
xéomos 26; without art. 123. 
KpdBBatos 25, 43. 

kpd(w 87, 274; 3d fut. pass. 279. 
Kpdéw 87. 

Kparew constr. of 202. 
kpéas inflection 65. 
Kpewapot 87. 

Kpiua accent 50. 

kpovey 593. 


Kpim7w 88; constr. of 227; mid. 25335 ts 


amd Tivos 622. 
Ktdouct 260; perf. 274. 
xtlows 82; without art. 123. 


- a / | 4 
KTLOTH, KTIOTH OL. 


ktlorns accent 51, 94; without art. 122. 
Kupiakds 236. 

KUptos kvptwy 18; without art. 124. 

Kdw and kvéw 88. 

KkwAvew with gen. 196. 

Kas, K@ 62. 


AaBé, AdBe 49. 

AaBdéy pleonastic ? 607. 
Aayxdvew constr. of 200. 
AdOpa 47. 

AatAay not AaiAay 50. 
Aadid 23. 

Aarety yAwooats 594. 


AapBdvew constr. of 202; thy emayyeAlay 


237. 
Aaumrds 23. 
Adokw 88, 


GREEK INDEX. 


Aarpedew 593. 


Aéyew constr. of 212; ellipsis of 587 ; Aéyer 


se. 6 Oeds 522, 588; Aéywy used absol. 
535 sq.; pleonastically 602. 

Aevt or Aevis inflection 66. 

AvOoBorcty 25, 26, 102. 

Atmos, 7, 22, 36, 63. 

Aoyla 25. 

AoyiCerOat els 228. 

AoylCount 259; ds 602. 

AaB 23. 

Aourdy, 74 592. 

Aovety ard 197; hover Bat 253. 

Aovkas 103. 

Avxvla 24. 

Avdda inflection 61. 

Avew 32; constr. of 197. 

Avtpovy constr. of 197; 
253. 


act. and mid. 


-pa substantives in 25, 93. 

padynreve 23; constr. of 221, 251. 

Maxedovla art. with 112. 

paxpay 230. 

parpddey 463. 

paAAov in comparison 240, 603 ; 
paAAov 633. 

pdun 25. 

Mavaco7 inflection 67. 

pavOdvew with infin. and part. 347. 

paptuplay waptupety 225, 

pdraos inflection 68. 

patny 230. 

paxalpns 62. 

peyadvve 30. 


ToAV 


peyadwovvn 26. 

peOvoxeoOu constr. of 201, 217, 252. 

pédvoos 23. 

petCorepos 27, 69. 

péAet constr. of 205. 

MeAloowos 24. 

péAAew with inf. 37, 334; aug. of 70. 

pepe neros 88. 

pev 443 ; eon of 558, 559; without dé 
575 sq.; weév... GAAG 443; wey... Bé 
540; pev.. mtmevra576; [OV woe al 576. 

pevovrye 558. 

pevro: 444, 558, 559. 

ere without art. 121. 

peoitevery 25. 

wéoos without art. 123, 131; uécoy as an 
ady. 471. 

perd with gen. 376 ; distinguished from ody 


. 


661 


391; with acc. 403; constr. of verbs 
compounded with 432; weta& rovro or 
Tavta 540. 

MeTavoeiv amd or ex 622. 

petatv, év To 592. 

peTaoTabjvat with gen. 196. 

petéxw constr. of 180, 201. 

peToikeola 24. 

petpey ev 218. 

ot anaee 101. 

méexpe and peéxprs 471. 

wh ete. distinguished from od 473 sq.; use 
of 476 sqq.; with impcrat. 476; in 
conditional clauses 477 sq.; in relative 
clauses 480 sq. ; with infin. 481; with 
participles 482 sq. ; apparently for od 
486 sq.; in continued negation 487 sq.; 
in antith. 495 sq. ; in independ. prop. 
500 sq.; in prohibitions 502; in de- 
pend. prop.502 sq. ; after dpa, BAéme etc. 
503, 601; after verbs of fearing 505 ; 
in questions 511; ellipsis with 596; 
redundant 604 ; in ef uf 633; in éxrds 
ei wh 605; in ef 5 uh ye 6053 wh... 
GAAd 5953; wh... AAG Kal 498 ; wy od 
5115; uy... was for undels 171. 

undé 487 sqq.; must be preceded by uh 
489; distinguished from kad uh 493; 
pnde... 

pndév 44. 

unnéte Supposed use of for uh 618. 

hy 434, 443. 

Enmore 480. 

pnmws with indic. pret. 504 sq.; with both 
indic. and subjunce. 505. 

phte 487 sqq.; used after unde ? 492. 

uhtnp without art. 122; omitted 190. 

puatyw 88. 

biuyvhoxeo Oat with gen. or acc. 180, 628. 

picbarodocta 24. - 


unre 492. 


ptcOwrds 51. 

pvnmovevey constr. of 205. 

porxaArls 24, 

-wovh substantives in 93. 

povdpOarpmos 24. 

novos without art. 131 ; 
of 495, 595. 

-uwos substantives in 93. 


supposed ellipsis 


pooxorateivy 26. 

puxtnpicer ev 629. 

puvptot, wvplo 53. 

p@pos accent 52. 

Mwio7jjs spelling 44 ; inflection 66. 


662 GREEK 


v in the accusative 66. 
vy épedrkvoricdy 41. 
vexpot without art. 123. 
ynmid(w 92. 

vixos 24. 

virrw 88. 

vot, vods 62. 

vouobeTeiy 261. 

véuos without art. 123. 
voood 24. 

vooool 24. 

vovecia 24. 

vovs inflection 62. 
Nuudas 102. 

viuon 32. 

vurvt 23 ; with imperat. 313. 
vuxOnuepov 25. 

vatos 6 and ré 63. 


tev[CeoOar constr. of 209. 
Eevodoxeus 25. 

Enpd, 4 18, 592. 

ftAov 23. 

Eupdw 24. 


6 with participle derisively 135; with an 
acc. elliptically 589; 6 pev...6 5é 
104; 6 5é without 6 wév 104; 6 dv. 6 
hv Kk. 6 épxduevos 68. 

8 for 5° 6 142; before a clause 168. 

éd¢€ apparently equiv. to 6 deta 162. 

656s 32; ellipsis of 590; 63v Oaddoons 
231. 

olxodeomorery 25. 

oixodeomdtns 25. 

oixodouery 30; augm. of 71; pass. 263; 
oixoy 603. 

oixodouh 24, etc. 35. 

olxTelpw 88. 

oixtTipuol 176. 

éAlyos without art. 131. 

dAobpetw, dAcOpedw 92. _ 

broKavTapa 33. 

dAdKAnpos 25. 

éAos without art. 131. 

-OdrvuTras 103. 

ductpecOat or duelperOat 101. 

dutAery constr. of 212. 

duvdw 88; constr. of 222. 

duordew 25. 

duotos accent 52; inflec. 68 ; constr. of 180, 
195, 209. 

duowbw ws 602. 


INDEX. 


duodoyeiy constr. of 39, 209, 226. 

dmoroyla 35. 

duws 334, 444; transposed 553. 

évetdiCev with the acc. 222. 

dveidiopos 24. 

dvoua as an alleged pleonasm 615; é& 
évéuati Tivos 390; émi TH ovdu. 394. 

dvoudcerOa not esse 615 sq. 

bmobey 471. 

oricw 471. 

émrotos 543, 

émdaos 543, 

dmov for brat 471, 472; 510. 

omTacia 24. , 

Saws constr. of 287 sq. 542 ; with &v 309 sq.; 
Spa Or. 338; meaning and use 449; 
daws TAnpwO7 461; not equiv. to dsre 
462 ; in indirect quest. 510; supposed 
ellipsis of 285, 595. 

dpdw 88 ; perf. in sense of pres, 274. 

opyn, 7 SC. TOD Oeod 594. 

dpy!CecOa constr. of 232. 

dpéyerOar 252. 

n opewh 591. 

dpéwy 64. 

dp0orodciv 26, 102. 

opOoTomery 26. 

opOpilw 26, 33. 

opOpivds 25. 

dpkoy or Spk@ 226, 603 ; els 397. 

dpkwuocla, H 24. 

dpobecia 25. 

ds supposed remote reference of 157 sq. ; 
for interrog. 167; position of clause 
with 167 sq. ; for demons. 168 ; before 
a clause 168; ds &y with the moods 
306 sq. ; ds wey... ds 56105; 6 for Of 
6 142. 

dads &y 297, 308. 

-ooay in 3d plur. hist. tenses 77. 

daov boov 247. 

dotéa, doTéwy 63. 

dstis occurs in N. T. only in nom. 163; 
dstis &y 306, 480, 548. 

daTpdivos 26. 

-oovvn substantives in 95. 

éray with indic. 36 ; with the moods 297, 
308, 309. 

dre with the indic. 296; with the subjunc. 
298; confounded with é7: 457; éaére 
constr. of 296. 

rt with infin. 339, 573; meaning and use 
of 445, 449; not equiv. to dd 456, 


GREEK INDEX. 


nor 8a Ti 456, nor quanquam 457, nor 
ére 457, nor profecto 457, nor ds 457 ; 
542 ; pleonastic ? 597 ; before the orat. 
rect. 605; ws dr: 618. 
é,71 mode of writing 46; as interrog. in 
N. T. 167, 168. 
ov etc. distinguished from pn 473 sqq. ; 
combining with verbs 476 ; with nouns 
476; in conditional sentences (e ov) 
477; after dr. and éel because 480; in 
relative clauses 480sq.; with partici- 
ples 485 ; in continued negation 488sq.; 
ov ... ore 490; in antith. (od ... dAAd) 
495,497; ot... dAAa Kal 498; ov udvoy 
... @AAd 498 ; with fut. ind. 315, 501; 
ov 7505 sq. ; Dawes’s rule 507 ; with 
pres. indic. 507; in questions 510 sq. ; 
ovk &pa511; ov uf disting. from put) od 
511sq.; od mdytws and mavtws ov 554; 
ov mdvv 554; ov pdvov dé, GAAG Kal 583 
sq.; not for ofrw 596; odx St... GAAG 
597; ovx ofoy 671 597; ov... was 30, 
171 sq.; od was 171. 
ob no 476. 
ov whither 471, 591. 
oval, 7 179. 
ovdé without a’ preceding neg. 487; in con- 
tinued negation 487 ; must be preceded 
by od 489, 500; ovdé ... od5¢ 489; 
after ofre 491 ; distinguished from kal 
ov 493, and from ode 487, 494; ovde 
...0€ 495; ovdé ne... quidem 500; 
ovdé wy 506, 539 sq. 
ovdé eis 173. 
ovdels éotw Ss with indic. 300. 
ovdels etc. 44. 
overt supposed half pleonastic use of 618. 
o¥xovy and ovKody 512. 
ovy uses of 444; allied to €455; not equiv. 
to but 455; nor for 455; nor super- 
fluous 455; as connective 539 sq. ; 
before apod. ? 541, 542; position of 558. 
ovpdvios inflection 68. 
ovpavdbev 463. 
ovpavds without art. 121; ovpavol 176. 
ovTe ... ove 487 sq. 540; ore... ovTE... 
kal ob 489; ore after ob 490; ove 
... 4491; otre after od5é% 492; diff. 
between and ovdé 494; oie . 
494, 
ovros with a noun and art. 110; remote 
reference of 157; repetition of 159 sq.; 
looking forwards 161 ; in expressions 


/ 
+e Kat 


663 


of time 161; position of 162, 548 ; 
TavTa 162; Tadra mavTa 548. 

o’rws and o'rw 41; repeated 160; looking 
forwards 161; for otros ? 465; before 
apod. 541; after. condit. clauses 541 ; 
with part. 541; in anaphora 618. 

dpeiAnua 32; dperruata aprevat 30, 33. 

dpedoy constr. of 301 sq. 

dWdpioy 23, 

oye 471. 

tyne 88. 

dWimos 24. 

déviov 23; -12 176. 

-ow verbs in 91, 


maénrds 97. 

maddpioy 96. 

madever 22. 

madid0ev 26, 463. 

mal(w 88. 

mats 30. 

mdAw position of 548,554; Sedrepoy or ék 
Sevrépouv 604; a&vwhey 604. 

mavdoxevs 25. 

mavoikt 26, 44. 

mavTa TadTa and tadta mayvTa 548. 

mavTn, wavTn 47. 

mdvtwy with the compar. 242; with the 
super]. 248. 

mavTote 26. 

mwapé in comparisons 240; distinguished 
from amd 364 sq. ; after passives 365 ; 
with gen. 365 sq. ; with dat. 394; with 
acc. 403; constr. of verbs compounded 
with 432. 

mapaparns 26. 

mapaBorcver Oat 93. 

mapadiatpiBh 102. 

mapadiSoc0a absol. 35. 

mapadhKn, Tapaxatabhkn 102. 

mapawvei constr. of 223. 

mapakadeiy 22; with infin. 332; constr. 
with 335. 

mapadaupdvel eis 622. 

TrapatAnotoy 471. 

mapacKevacouat 253. 

mapappovia 24. 

mapeuBorn 22. 

mapexew, TapéexerOat 257. 

Tapuevas 103. 

mappnota 23. 

mwas art. with 111; mwas ... ov (uh) 172; 

ndvtn and mdytn 47; mavra and ra 


664 


mdvra 116; mdévtwy with the compar. 
242; with the superl. 248; mdvra 
TavTa and travta mdvtTa 548; maytl, 
ev 592. 

mwdoxa 68. 

maoxew 35, 594; constr. of 412. 

mathp without art. 122; ellipsis of 190. 

TmaTpidpxns 26. 

TlavAos use of art. with 113. 

maverOat with gen. 196, 262; mavouct mid. 
253, 263. 

maxvvew 18, 

melOew tva 338. 

melOouct 253. 

meOds 24, 96. 

meway etc. 77 ; constr. of 204 sq. 

meipdw 91. 

Tmecnovn 93 sq. 

méAaryos THs Oaddoons 611. 

meAcKiCw 26. 

méumw in the preterite 278. 

mevteKooTy 26. 

memeipayevos 91. 

mémro.da constr. of 214, 233, 410. 

memolOnois 25. 

mépata THs ys 30. 

mept in circumlocutions ? 192 sq.; with 
gen. 372; distinguished from b7ép 373, 
411 sq. ; with acc. 406 ; constr. of verbs 
compounded with 432. 

mepidryery 257. 

meptkeiuat constr. of 229. 

mepirarety 32. 

mepiomacbat 23. 

mwepiacotépws 70, 243. 

meTdouat 24, 

meTouat 88. 

anxav 65. 

midw 22. 

miecat 88. 

TiAaros accent 52; use of art. with 113. 

mivw 88; fut. mlouct 90. 

mintw 89. 

motevew constr. of 213, 229, 233, 260. 

mirtikds 97. 

miotis etc. 35; without art. 120. 

TAatovey Thy Kapdiay 30. 

mAetv with acc. 224. 

mwréov 596. 

mAcovetia without art. 120. 

mAnyn ellipsis of 589. 

wAny 508. 

mAnpovv, TAnpota bat 180, 201, 217, 260. 


GREEK INDEX. 


mAnpopopla 25. 

mAnatoy, 6 24, 130, 471. 

TAnopwovh 94. 

mAods 62. 

mAovatos constr. of 201. 

mAovTos gend. 65 ; mAovTov mAovTeEtv 225. 

mvedua etc. Without art. 122; 7d mvevpatiKoy 
592. 


wola 22) 


mo.eiv, TovetoOar 256; not pleonastic 609 ; 
moeiv €Aeos meTa T. 333; Torey va 337. 

motuvioy accent 52. 

moAeuev peta T. 180, 214. 

moAiTever Oat 262. 

moAAdkts position of 553. 

ToAuuepws 463. 

moAvs with other adj. 525, e.g. moAAd Kah 
&AAa and &AAa woAAd 525; moAAol and 
of moAAot 110; woAv in comparison 240; 
ToAY maddov 633 ; mAéov 596. 

moAutpémws 463. 

mopever Oa drriaw 30. 

moppw eivat 465. 

motamds 24. 

more for édméte 510. 

mwotnpov ... 4 509. 

ToTnptoy 32. 

mov 471, 508, 510. 

movs accent 50. 

mpqos 47. 

mpavs, mpairns 45. 

mpnvys 22. 

amply with subjunc. 297 ; with infin. 330, 332. 

mpd 372; with gen. of time 557; constr. of 
verbs compounded with 432. 

mpoBdrdAew 593. 

mpoBatiknh Sc. m0An 592. 

mpoBAemety, TpoBAéred Oat 258. 

mpoéxerOat 264. 

mpokdmrew 251. 

mpés for the simple dat. ? 212, 214; with 
gen. 373; with dat. 395; with acc. 
404 sq.; in circum. 425; verbs com- 
pounded with 432. 

mposépxecOa constr. of 427, 432, 

mposéxew Tivi sc. Tév vovy 593. 

mposhdAuTos 24, 26, 97. 

mposkuvey constr. of 36, 210, 593. 

mposttOnur adverbial constr. of 468. 

mposparytov 25. 

mpospdtws 463. 

mpospépew constr. of 427, 432, 593. 

mpospwrveiv with dat. 36; and acc. 180. 


GREEK INDEX. 


— 


TposwroAnmreiy 33, 48, 101. 

mpoowmoAnnrns 101. 

tpocwroAnvia 48, 101. 

mpdswrov without art. 122, cf. 174; Hebr. 
use of 607 ; mpéswrov AauBavew 30, 33. 

mpopntevery augm. of 71. 

mpvuva 22. 

mpwt 47. 

mpwivds 26. 

mpapyns 62. 

mparos for mpdrepos 244; for eis 248 sq. 

mrvov 24. 

TT@UA 23. 

mvAn ellipsis of 592. 

mas 508, 510. 


p past tenses of verbs beginning with 74. 
‘Paya indecl. 61. 

pavricew 24, 74. 

pamopa 25. 

pagis 25. 

pevow 89. 

pew 89. 

pjua without art. 123. 
phoow 22. 

pvecOat constr. of 197. 
pvun 22, 23. 

‘Péun use of art. with 112. 


ao and s 41 sq. 
odBBarov inflec. 63; ta cdf. 177. 
carTiw 89; cadrmicer sc. 6 oadm. 522. 
Sapudpero art. with 112. 
odpivos and capkucds 98. 
maoa odpé 33. 
gapour 24, 
ocBaceoOa 23. 
onuatyw 89. 
abevdw 26. 
Sfaas 103. 
owidw 26, 92. 
-o1s substantives in 93. 
o1ToMeTpioy 25. 
ciros inflection 68. 
sKavdariCew 33. 
oKdvoadov 382. 
oKéerTouat 89. 
oxnvotnyla 26, 101. 
oKAnpokapdia 26, 99. 
oKAnpoTpaxnaros 26, 99. 
oKAnpivw 92. 
oKopTicey 22. 
okdtos, 6 22, 66. 

84 





-oKw verbs in 92. 

SorAoudy inflec. and accent 67. 

Sravia 25. 

omelpns 62. 

omépua 30. - 

omtAos 25. 

orAdyxva 18; with gen. 611. 

omrayxvicer@at 30, 33; constr. of 221, 233. 

orovddw 89. 

oTduvos 238. 

oréyev 23. 

oThkw 24, 26; with dat. 210. 

aTnpi(w 89; ornplcew mpdcwmroy adtod 33. 

otdua 18, 30. 

otpépe for an adverb? 469. 

atpnviay 25. 

oTpwrvvvew eavT@ 594. 

ov when expressed 152. 

ovyyevis 69. 

ovykplvew 23. 

guykupia 24. 

ovAAauBavery concipere 593. 

oun BddAew tivl or mpds Tiva SC. Ad-yous 593. 

cuumabntns 25. 

guutoAirns 25. 

avy 3913; distinguished from perd 391; 
constr. of verbs compounded with 433. 

-cvyn substantives in 95. 

cvvinut forms of 81. 

cuviovart 81. 

cuviornut 238. 

ovyTlOecOa 254. 

Supia art. with 112. 

Supopolvicca, Svpopowikiooa 95. 

TXOAN 23. 

od Cew constr. of 197. 

Sémratpos 103. 


Taueiov 24, 94. 

Tatewoppoatyn 26, 99. 

tamewvoppwr 236. 

TapTapouy 25. 

taidta referring to a single object 162; 
TavTa TavTa and mdyta TavTa 548. 

Taxvs comparison of 69. 

te distinguished from xal 434; Te.. .Te 
439; re... 56439; Te ral 439 ; Te yap 
448, 539sq.; position of 559; with 
ampatov 576. 

Texvioy accent 52. 

rexvoy With gen. of abstracts 238. 

Trercow fut. 77. 

Téepas 65. 


666 


téacepes etc. 438. 

Tetevxe 89. 

-TnS, -oTns Substantives in 94. 

7(Onut forms of 78. 

Tiuwy accent 51. 

vis, ri in indirect quest. and for the relat. 
168 sq.; for rétepos 169; tls éoriv ds 
with indic. 300, and od 481; ri used 
adverbially 142 ; in exclamations 142 ; 
Tt Ore 585. 

vis, Tt (indef.) not used for e% tis 169; with 
substs. and adjs. 170 sq.; position of 
170, 559; ve aliquid (magni) 170; Tov, 
tw not used in N. T. 171; te as ace. 
with verbs 227. 

Tiros and Tiros 52; never has art. 113. 

76 before entire clauses 109 ; before a word 
as a sound 109, 179; before the infin. 
320; 7d e& judy and the like 230. 

Tot 434, 

Tovyapouy 445. 

Tolvuy 445, 559. 

TotovtTos use of art. with 111. 

ToAuay alleged pleonasm of 612 sq. 

-tos verbals in 96 sq. 

Téve as a connective 540; before apod. 
541, 

tovro used adverbially 142; rodro wey... 
tovto dé so used 142; todr’ eaotw ep- 
exegetical 530. 

tplrov 250. 

Tpdpiuos accent 51. 

tpoxds accent 54. 

Tpwds use of art. with 112. 

Tuyxdve 89; constr. of 200; supposed to 
be pleonastic 609. 

tuxX6y 355. 

-Twoay in imperat. 76 sq. 


Badros 22. 

bBptCew with the ace. 

byty accusative 64. 

Udwp ellipsis of 591. 

vet ds ellipsis of 592. 

vids Oavdrov 33; vids with abstr. gen. 238 ; 
supposed to be omitted 190, 593; 6 
vids Tod avOpétov not equiv. to éy# 144. 

‘Yuévaos accent 51. 

-vyw verbs in 92. 

bmaxovery eis 165. 

irdpxew with part. 350. 

iwép with gen. 382 sq.; distinguished from 


GREEK INDEX. 


° 


423; constr. of verbs compounded 
with 433. 

bmepdvw 422, 

Umepeceiva 463. 

bmepAlav 422, 

brep@ov 96. 

brd with gen. 364, 368 sq. ; confounded 
with azé 370sq.; with acc. 407; constr. 
of verbs compounded with 433. 

bmokdTw 422. 

btoumviokey constr. of 227. 

broma(w for imwmdw 43. 

bwomddioy 26. 

drwmaiw 43. 

botepe 196, 260. 

ipody TH SekiG 215. 


gayetv 89; constr. of 198 sq. 

pdryerut 89. 

gdyos accent 51. 

palyw 89; davivat constr. of 233. 

pavorw 90. 

gelSecOa constr. of 180, 205. 

peidoudvws 99. 

peidds 96. 

pépw 90. 

gpevyew constr. of 223. 

@7AcE accent 52. 

nol sc. 6 Oeds 522, 588; in direct discourse 
558 ; ellipsis of, or of pn 598. 

pbdvew 23, 90. 

pidarn 22. ' 

poBeto Oa constr. of 223. 

poimé or hotvit % 50. 

popéow fut. 77 sq. 

ppudooety 24. 

gvels 90. 

puaakifw 26. 

pvdaxtjpioy 26. 

guddocewv véuov 80; pudakds 225; pudde- 
cecOa constr. of 223; signification of 
253. 

pvotovabat 24. 

vw intrans. 22, 252; forms of 90. 

pwvety pwrvn 226. 


xdpis duty etc. 549. 

xaipw 90; constr. of 210, 232; yxalpew in 
salutation 316. 

xaphooua 90. 

xaplCoua 90, 261, 264. 

xapioouat 90. 


wept 383; with acc. 403; as an adverb | xeiAos 18, 30, 32. 


GREEK INDEX. 


XelAewy uncontr. 64. 

xeip ellipsis of 592, 

XepovBiu 68. 

xopracew 23. 

Xpewpetrerns 44. 

xpn¢ew constr. of 200. 

XpnuatiCew 23, 260. 

xpijcOa constr. of 209 sq. 

xplew constr. of 227. 

xptoua accent 50. 

Xpiotiavds 95. 

Xpiotds and 6 Xpiords 118; supposed use 
of to intensify 248. 

xpdvos year 177. 

XpucodaxrvAtos 26. 

-xvaia 93 note. 

xpa ellipsis of 591. 

xwptCew constr. of 197. 

_xwpls 471 ; xwpls twos eiva 465. 


“Wevdeo@a constr. 212. 

Wevoua 24, 

Widicna WyndlecOa 225. 

WiOupiaths 24. 

Wixlov 24, 

Wux7 never redundant 156; 7d uxixdy 592, 


667 


Wopuicery 23; with the acc. 226 note. 

-w in the acc. 62. 

wodly 65. 

@0éw 90. 

éy as an imperf. part. 341. 

avéoun aug. of 70, 90. 

eavnoduny 70, 90. 

w@rdpioy 24, 96. 

épa without art. 124 ; ellipsis of 591 sq.. 

apeuny 88. 

@s (not &s 462) constr. of 296, 448, 449; 
with infin. 318 ; always as (not ofrws) 
462; before a series 519; before a 
pred. 527 ; supposed pleonastic 617 ; 
force of, particularly before gen. abs. 
617; with a prep. of direction 617 sq.; 
as... Kal 440; ds drt 6183 ws (sep) 

. oUTws 440; as &y 308, 309 note; 
@s @ros eimeiy 317, 449. 

eodunv 71. 

ésmep in prot. without apod. 599. 

éste constr. of 801, 318, 327 ; with a neg- 
ative 480. : 

@tloy 25. 

a@peAeiy constr. of 227. 

@péAtmos constr. of 213. 


Ill. INDEX OF PASSAGES IN THE N.T. EXPLAINED 
OR CITED. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. i 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


” 


Matt. 
Matt. i. 
Matt. i. 
Matt. i. 
Matt. i. 
Matt. i 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. i 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. ii 
Matt. i 
Matt. ii 
Matt. ii 
Matt. ii 


ie 
i, 3 
i. 6 
i. 10 
Lud 
1.12 
i. 16 
Tal7 
i. 18 


> 9) 


i, 19 


le 
Canrtnr wd = 


ee 
ee 
— ped 
no © 


Matt. ii. 


Matt. ii 
Matt. ii 
Matt. ii 


Matt. 
Matt. 


lil. 3 
ili, 4 


The Figures refer to Pages; those followed by an Asterisk indicate passages not 


merely referred to or quoted, but commented upon. 


125 
366 

67, 190 

67 

187*, 375* 

187* 

366 

110*, 370 

113, 192, 208*, 330, 368, 455* 
465*, 527, 616% 

330 

391*, 401% 

141, 150, 182 

461, 562, 563 

436 

107, 182, 296, 436 


113, 139 

155, 318*, 446% 

68, 111*, 113, 344, 376 
75, 110, 266*, 365 
114, 429 

106 

287, 607 

104, 275, 296, 473, 542 
66, 224 

260, 428, 481 

79, 267, 434 

104, 428 

365, 370, 401* 

61 

229 

175, 446* 

206, 260, 364%, 375, 471, 472 


61 
108, 370, 406*, 523 
668 


Matt. iii 
Matt. iii 


Matt. i 


Matt. iii 
Matt. iii 
Matt. iii 








Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. iii 
Matt. 
Matt. i 
Matt. iii 
Matt. iii. 
Matt. iii 
Matt. iii 


il. 


Matt. iv. 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. iv. 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 


68, 268, 438* 

528 

409 

206, 444 

151 

110, 266*, 444 

75, 217, 266*, 337, 412*, 630 
75, 149* 

325 

269, 436% 

269 

147*, 151*, 369* 
132, 232, 278*, 586 


106*, 374, 392, 428 
334*, 541 

87, 280*, 377, 389*, 392 
622 

373 

210 

521 

428 

121, 187*, 231*, 590 
147, 247, 602 

° 422 
177, 403*, 417%, 446 
228, 606 

113, 132, 190 

131, 132, 145, 186, 426, 539 
110, 436, 527, 539 

67, 420, 520, 539 


115, 428 
608 

195, 215, 551, 585 
| 200, 551 
551, 585 


fs eg et eet ee 


ae Se ap ee ee 


AAG Alene oe et ied 


3 


~d 
- 


< 


OANA AP WwW WH = 


— ~J 
eh ad fer) 


rE PPE PPR wWwWWWHWNwnwwWwnNnnnDnN NNN NW KYL He Fe eB 
OrmRnNnRrtrNK CH WN OOTRWNH WNIAONWBNHNKH CO wWY* HW]aQ wo ow 


— 
a 


— 
In wo 


N. T. INDEX. 


205%, 551, 585 
551, 585 
215, 551, 585 
122, 229, 551, 585, 615 
120, 551, 585 

222, 551 

114, 293, 388, 541 

78, 436 

287 

ETRY 

172, 432, 506, 518, 542, 
552, 612% 

160, 246*, 310, 543, 615 
245*, 477, 506 

85, 210, 219*, 316, 502, 522 
111*, 209, 213*, 455, 621 
455% 

79, 296*, 502 

506 

316 

204 

85 

56, 496 

85, 86, 316 

222, 389*, 481, 488 

397* 

76, 490 

476 

588, 598% 
168, 280%, 481 
147, 209 
280* 

254% 

222 

445%, 457% 
266 

315, 540 


« 


31, 121, 259, 329*, 405, 583, 605 
275*, 287, 540 

502, 592 

148, 235 

275*, 310, 315, 467*, 502 
94, 132, 433 

387*, 501 

209, 329*, 372 

121, 533* 

440 

; 97* 

81, 152, 448* 

197, 501 

56, 275*, 638 

143, 253 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


“cc 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 





Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. viii. 


669 

vi. 18 477 
vi. 19 501, 594* 
vi. 20 488, 489 
vi. 22 114 
vi. 24 116, 440 
vi. 25 156, 209, 299, 488 
vi. 26 57, 430, 487*, 514 
VEE 27 432 
vi. 28 373, 488 
vi. 29 110 
vi. 30 341 
vi. 31 519 
vi. 32 200, 548* 
vi. 34 209, 517, 590 
vii. 1 476, 477, 501 
vii. 2 165, 388, 412, 429, 522 
Vii. 4 285, 429 
vii. 6 ‘388, 487*, 503 
vii. 7 57, 522, 552, 593* 
vii. 8 266 
vii. 9 169*, 227, 310, 512*, 568, 628 
vii. 10 440, 441* 
vii. 11 139 
vii. 12 336*, 455 
vii. 13 73 
Vii. 14 143* 
vii. 15 384 
vii. 16  279*, 370, 372%, 411, 420, 
bie Te Ha MS DPR 
vil. 18 488 
vii. 21 171* 
vii. 22 71, 510* 
Vii. 23 370, 426, 427 
vii. 24 71, 155, 209, 225, 279%, 574 
vii. 25 73, 275, 432, 436, 539 
vil. 27 436 
vii. 28 296, 393, 608 
vii. 29 348, 617* 
viii. 1 147, 220*, 367, 602 
viii. 2 76, 549 
Vili. 3 607 
viii. 4 106, 146*, 147*, 253% 
villi. 5 61 
viii. 7 607 
vill. 8 57, 61, 155, 259, 335, 337, 407 
viii. 9 407* 
viii. 11 176, 552 
viii. 12 106 
viii. 13 61, 259 
vili. 19 117, 310, 576 
20 299*, 510 


670 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 


wd. Rad) ot ee ed 
ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 
ee ee ee ee 
be be pte ee ee re tate hte hs he 
OoOowwwownobndbdnwbw WY iW Wb 
ron OV OO PR OD = 


Ll 
1 
po b= 


Matt. ix. 


Matt. i 
Matt. i 


-_ 
A 
omm uo 


Matt. ix. 


Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 


ee ee 
MoM OM OM 
— et 
BP OND © 


Matt. ix. 
Matt. ix. 


Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. 
Matt. i 


a ee | 
MMM Mw BOB OB 
wmownw NY Fe | 
TF LOT. NG Goce, Sl S65 


Matt. ix. 


Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


pe ee el 
MM Om OM OM Oe 
Cs ¢9 ¢9 Go Go. tO 
oun, = © O 


ix. 38 


a 


— 
° 


N. T. INDEX. 


576*, 638 
330, 576 
429, 539 

539 

539 

220, 366, 480 
87, 124, 330, 372 
188 

292, 545 
311*, 381 
416 

110, 338 


154, 539 
80, 374, 539 

539 

169, 539 

80, 169 

374, 563*, 580*, 620* 
111, 175% 

608 


66, 271*, 495, 496* 
227, 518 

408*, 427, 614* 
394 

605 

117, 442, 545, 607 
230 

183, 370, 549 

296 

221 

401* 

72, 501 

104 

389 

131, 145, 186, 548, 610 
75, 349 

198, 338 


185 
132 

113 

187% 

537 

489, 493 
194, 206, 585 
307*, 308, 543 
293 

129, 429, 488 
413 

213 





Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 3 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt.. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 





Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


bo 
nN 


ww 
we) ey) 
o bo 


MM 
co 
@ 


407 

168, 299, 309 
497, 513 

64, 213, 409, 514 
506 

403 

337*, 628* 

300*, 481, 639 
85, 374, 455, 543 
83, 223, 439 
172*, 206, 407 
131 

226%, 455% 

495, 501* 

32, 382 

403 

214, 234 

310, 591 


145, 608 
341 

229, 260 

73, 106*, 318 
227, 442, 591 
59, 244*, 384 
259, 370 

71, 634 

209, 432 
437° 

488, 552 

371 

304* 

153 

121 


370, 428, 457, 459, 552, 630 


182 
310, 508 
215 


63, 77, 116, 118, 177, 218 


85, 332, 385 
77, 519 

131, 198 

66, 304% 

146* 

203, 319*, 332, 509* 
169, 202 

63, 301, 444 

72 

288 

147* 

156, 278* 

82, 488 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
~ Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. xiii. 


Xiii. 
xiii. 
xiii. 
xiii. 
xiii. 
Xili. 
xiii. 
Xiii. 
xiii. 
Xiii. 
xiii. 
Xiii. 
Xili. 
xiii. 
xiii. 
xiii. 
xiii. 
xiii. 
Xiii. 
xiii. 
xili. 
xiii. 
xiii. 
xiii. 
Xili. 
xiii. 
xiii. 
Xill. 


N. T. INDEX. 


70, 82 

75, 514 

511 

126 

252, 518 

173*, 279, 292 
441% 

90, 292, 445, 541 
477 

376, 483% 

307, 488*, 499, 595% 
368 

106, 174, 524 
148, 181, 574 
368, 441, 609 
371 

60, 437 

540, 541 

228, 377*, 397* 
67, 121, 376 
431 

274 

112, 150, 160 


408* 
106*, 325, 333 
403* 

57, 120 

81 

61, 82, 211, 354, 466 
494, 503 

585 

185* 

483 

377 

369 

81 

524* 

175, 329*, 385, 398 
84 

510, 548 

285 

104, 470, 476 
225 

607 

607 

268% 

437 

57, 371 

523 

110 

428 

75 








Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 3 


Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. xiv. 
Matt. x 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. x 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 





Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 





Matt. xX 


Matt. 3 
Matt. xi 


Xili. 
Xiii. 
Xiil. 
xiii. 
Xiii. 
Xlil. 
xiii. 


XV. 
XV. 
XV. 


onrwwnw wd bw bw 
@ 


bo tb 
aur &O NW 


m= © 


35 
38 


671 


211, 429 
539, 608 
539 
539 
405, 539 
539 
539 


61, 113, 185 
123 

202, 275, 414* 
218 

377* 

558 

392 

216 

141, 147 

287 

71, 407, 426, 428 
528 

552 

297, 333*, 429 
330, 428 

471* 

374 

371 

330 

369* 

201% 

607 

121 

306* 


88, 143, 198, 254, 308* 
316, 339, 466 

127, 506, 600* 

71 

106, 429, 495 

464% 

596* 

429 

520 

548 

173*, 595* 

319, 513 

199, 369* 

549, 592 

403* 

403% 

168*, 233, 409, 502, 563 
_548* 

74, 428 

552 


672 N. T INDEX. 








Matt. xvi. 6 223, 580 ) Matt, xviii, 21 82, 233, 355 
Matt. xvi. 7 598* | Matt. xviii. 22 250* 
Matt. xvi. 9 205 | Matt. xviii. 23 330, 376, 523 — 
Matt. xvi. 11 580* | Matt. xviii. 24 | 117* 
Matt. xvi. 13 529* | Matt. xvili. 25 * 301, 484* 
Metthevi. 14 105, 521 | Matt. xviii. 27 204, 221 
Matt. xvi. 16 114 | Matt. xviii. 28 117, 202, 209 
Matt. xvi. 17 549, 552 | Matt. xviii. 29 545 
Matt. xvi. 18 125, 155, 394, 443, 638 | Matt. xviii. 31 455 
Matt. xvi. 19 32, 65, 121 | Matt. xviii. 32 183, 549 
Matt. xvi. 20 334*, 477 | Matt. xviii. 33 440 
Matt. xvi. 21 83, 369, 371, 422 
Matt. xvi. 22 211*, 280*, 507* | Mas. xix. 1 608 | 
Matt. xvi. 26 87, 1381*, 564* | Matt. xix. 2 147* 
Matt. xvi. 27 564* | Matt. xix. 3 116, 331, 402*, 509 
Matt. xvi. 28 198, 506, 508 | Matt. xix. 5 183, 262, 522* 
Matt. xix. 6 301 
Matt. xvii. 1 428 | Matt. xix. 8 124, 405* 
Matt. xvii. 2 437 | Matt. xix. 9 394 
Matt. xvii. 3 433 | Matt. xix. 10 292, 319, 465 F 
Matt. xvii. 4 66, 173, 292, 319 | Matt. xix. 11 158, 171 
Matt. xvii. 5 71, 199, 278*, 431 | Matt. xix. 12 122 
Matt. xvii. 6 74, 125,174 | Matt. xix. 13 270, 288* 
Matt. xvii. 9 123, 366 | Matt. xix. 17 292 
Matt. xvii. 11 265 | Matt. xix. 18 87, 109, 502 
Matt. xvii. 12 218*, 369 | Matt. xix. 19 316 
Matt. xvii. 14 210 | Matt. xix. 21 607 
Matt. xvii. 15 155 | Matt. xix. 22 343, 349* 
Matt. xvii. 16 84 | Matt. xix. 24 319 
Matt. xvii. 17 83, 202 | Matt. xix. 25 445 
Matt. xvii. 18 - 149* | Matt: xix. 26 395 
Matt. xvii. 19 152, 457 | Matt. xix. 28 408, 409 
Matt. xvii. 20 247*, 471 | Matt. xix. 29 200 
Matt. xvii. 24 85 
Matt. xvii. 25 129, 370*, 540 | Matt. xx. 1 213*, 254, 523 
Matt. xvii. 27 364, 561 .| Matt. xx. 2 368*, 376, 433 
Matt. xx. 3 124, 384, 406 
Matt. xviii. 1 244, 445 | Matt. xx. 8 621 
Matt. xviii. 3 469*, 506 | Matt. xx. 9 398 
Matt. xviii. 4 45, 257, 308 | Matt. xx. 10 321, 437* 
Matt. xviii. 5 393* | Matt. xx. 12 209 
Matt. xviii. 6 337*, 611* | Matt. xx. 13 206 
Matt. xviii. 7 371 | Matt. xx. 15 509 
Matt. xviii. 8 241, 320, 518 | Matt. xx. 18 210 
Matt. xviii. 9 177 | Matt. xx. 19 88, 218 
Matt. xviii. 11 178 | Matt. xx. 20 170*, 227 
Matt. xviii. 12 211 | Matt. xx. 21 122, 125, 173, 367, 552 
Matt. xviii. 13 232, 293 | Matt. xx. 22 32, 168 
Matt. xviii. 14 117 | Matt. xx. 23 451, 582 
Matt. xviii. 15 ° 82, 87 | Matt. xx. 24 64, 232 
Matt. xviii. 16 875, 440 | Matt. xx. 25 613 
Matt xviii. 17 106, 293 | Matt. xx. 28 318, 364, 383 


Matt. xviii. 


_ 
ide) 


163 ' Matt. xx. 29 67 


Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


<x. 
> hws 
<i. 
Saki. 
Sxi. 
XXi. 
xxi. 
XXi. 
Xi. 
se aly 
Ri. 
aah 
i. 
XXi. 
xt. 


Xxil. 
XXil. 
XXil. 
XXii. 
XXil. 
XXil. 
XXil. 
XXil. 
XXil. 
XXii. 
XXil. 
Slt. 
Xxii. 
XXil. 
Kil; 
XXii. 
XXil. 
XxXil. 
XXii. 
XXii. 
oa al 
XXil. 
XXil. 
Xxii. 


KE omWntornanr WON & 


RPROWWHwAwWHNH DN DWH 
mM Onrorwe POND KH OO WwW 


42 


N. T. INDEX. 


87, 251, 404 
549 


‘96 
155* 

453% 

563, 564% 

85, 155, 156*, 430, 437 
564 

143, 175* 

270, 417, 515 

551, 585 

370 

31, 267, 615 

117*, 375*, 508 
276% 

261 

307% 

220, 441 

173, 227 

64, 169 

71, 523 

105 

244 

221 

308* 

83, 144*, 637* 
164, 238, 365*, 385 


602 
176 
56 
126 
154, 528 
201 
483 
552 
95, 206, 424, 463, 499 
333, 509 
74 
267 
482 
84, 342, 475* 
195, 385, 446 
489 
488 
232 
246% 
143 
151 
64 
113 
228 
85 








Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


XXil. 44 


Xxill. 


‘XXiii. 


4 
po. 401 
8 
9 


XXiii. 

Xxiil. 10 
<M Le 
Xxili. 15 
Xxili. 20 
XXili. 23 
XXili. 25 
Sei. 27 
Xxili. 30 
xxii. 31 
XXili. 32 
Xxiii. 33 
XXiil. 34 
Xxili. 35 
XXili. 36 
xxiii. 37 
Xxiii. 39 


Xxiv. 1 
Kxiv.>2 
Xxiv. 4 
Xxiv. 6 
Xxiv. 7 
Xxiv. 9 
xxiv. 10 
xxiv. 12 
xxiv. 13 
xxiv. 15 
xxiv. 16 
ee CM 
xxiv. 18 
xxiv. 20 
xxiv. 21 
XxiVv. 22 
Xxiv. 24 
xxiv. 26 
xxiv. 27 
Xxiv. 30 
xxiv. 31 
xxiv. 32 
xxiv. 33 
xxiv. 34 
xxiv. 35 
xxiv. 38 
xxiv. 40 
xxiv. 41 
xxiv. 44 
xxiv. 45 


673 
81 


78, 430 

452*, 456 

155 

488, 590* 

488 

258, 280*, 543 
552, 592* 

88 

66, 520 

201* 

63, 209, 610 
80, 304, 523 
151, 212*, 301 
311*, 437* 
223%, 285 


64, 84, 419, 459, 594*, 598 


61, 129, 459, 462, 587 
548 

230, 330 

456, 506, 551 


429 
300, 409, 481%, 
504 

185*, 501* 

401 

213, 348 

173 

110 

160 

79, 563 

407, 412 


362, 368, 501, 502, 629* 


417, 502 

207, 489 

123, 499, 505 
171, 234, 477 

65, 333, 585 

175 

176 

374 

247, 377 

90 

123, 176, 392, 548 
508 

506, 552 

164%, 

116, 173, 266*, 384 
95 

57, 165 

325, 524 


674 N. T. INDEX. 

















Matt. xxiv. 46 : 551 | Matt. xxvi. 37 177 
Matt. xxiv. 50 422 | Matt. xxvi. 38 122, 156 

Matt. xxvi. 39 78, 74, 126 
Matt. xxv. 1 279 | Matt. xxvi. 40 . 267, 330 
Matt. xxv. 6 207 | Matt. xxvi. 42 477 | 
Matt. xxv. 9 209, 504%, 582, 598* | Matt. xxvi. 43 83 
Matt. xxv. 11 610 | Matt. xxvi. 44 71, 424* 
Matt. xxv. 13 * 489 | Matt. xxvi. 45 311* 
Matt. xxv. 14 154, 599 | Matt. xxvi. 48 275* 
Matt. xxv. 15 154, 401 | Matt. xxvi. 50 167*, 275, 409 
Matt. xxv. 16 72 | Matt. xxvi. 51 607 
Matt. xxv. 19 433 | Matt. xxvi. 53 436, 596 
Matt. xxv. 20 87, 393* | Matt. xxvi. 54 285* 
Matt. xxv. 21 409,524 | Matt. xxvi. 55 74 
Matt. xxv. 23 30 | Matt. xxvi. 58 603 
Matt. xxv. 24 159* | Matt. xxvi. 59 270, 438* 
Matt. xxv. 26 549 | Matt. xxvi. 60 437 
Matt. xxv. 27 282*, 303 | Matt. xxvi. 62 432, 608* 
Matt. xxv. 29 483 ; Matt. xxvi. 63 298, 382 
Matt. xxv. 32 75, 427 |.Matt. xxvi. 65 257 
Matt. xxv. 33 122, 552 | Matt. xxvi. 66 202 
Matt. xxv. 34 189*, 370 | Matt. xxvi. 67 74, 105*, 125, 430 
Matt. xxv. 35 77, 80, 84 | Matt. xxvi. 69 66 
Matt. xxv. 36 73, 74 | Matt. xxvi. 71 147, 178* 
Matt. xxv. 37 261 | Matt. xxvi. 72 545 
Matt. xxv. 40 409 | Matt. xxvi. 73 235 
Matt. xxv. 41 122 | Matt. xxvi. 74 88, 457* 
Matt. xxv. 45 409 

Matt. xxvii. 1 318, 382 

Matt. xxvi. 1 608 | Matt. xxvii. 2 138 
Matt. xxvi. 2 265*, 329 | Matt. xxvii. 4 76 
Matt. xxvi. 4 66 | Matt. xxvii..5 253*, 385, 414* 
Matt. xxvi. 5 582, 596* | Matt. xxvii. 7 206, 211*, 368* 
Matt. xxvi. 8 397 | Matt. xxvii. 8 590 
Matt. xxvi. 9 70, 206, 282 | Matt. xxvii. 9 61 
Matt. xxvi. 10 72, 397 | Matt. xxvii. 12 261 
Matt. xxvi. 11 446 | Matt. xxvii. 13 432 
Matt. xxvi. 12 376* | Matt. xxvil. 14 173* 
Matt. xxvi. 15 176 | Matt. xxvii. 15 401* 
Matt. xxvi. 16 422 | Matt. xxvii. 18 268, 399* 
Matt. xxvi. 17 66, 218, 285 | Matt. xxvii. 21 ! 582 
Matt. xxvi. 18 75 | Matt. xxvii. 22 143, 222, 444, 455* 
Matt. xxvi. 23 414*, 429* | Matt. xxvii. 23 447% 
Matt. xxvi. 24 282*, 305, 379* | Matt. xxvii. 24 113, 197 
Matt. xxvi. 25 85 | Matt. xxvii. 25 587 
Matt. xxvi. 26 106, 114, 116, 403 | Matt. xxvii. 28 226 
Matt. xxvi. 28 114, 182, 191, 341, 411 | Matt. xxvii. 29 182, 366, 408, 592 
Matt. xxvi. 29 422 | Matt. xxvii. 30 — 430 
Matt. xxvi. 32 329* | Matt. xxvii. 31 88, 226 : 
Matt. xxvi. 33 292*, 582 | Matt. xxvii. 32 182 
Matt. xxvi. 34 330 | Matt. xxvii. 33 166 
Matt. xxvi. 35 506,571 | Matt. xxvii.34 .° 319, 330, 376 


Matt. xxvi. 36 472 | Matt. xxvii. 35 Q57 


Matt. xxvii. 


Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 


Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 


N. T. INDEX. 


275*, 340 
122, 173 
222, 268 

79, 135, 292, 353* 
571 
214, 233, 409 

175*, 227 

124, 407 
63, 169 
79, 559 

607 
164, 226 
603 
514 
270% 
275 


203, 248, 471 


247 
135 

123 

377 

296 

176 

293, 375 

161 

396, 471 

105% 

116 

141, 192, 251, 314 


125, 187 
188%, 350* 
438 

86, 198 

148, 268, 319 
150 

416 

554 

60, 376, 539 
329 

213 

413, 417* 
606, 608 








Mark i. 
Mark i. 
Mark i. 
Mark i. 


pe . . 
. . . . 


Mark 
Mark i. 
Mark i. 
Mark i. 
Mark i. 

i 

i 





Mark i. 
Mark i. 


Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 





Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 





Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 


to 


— = a =“ O MONI SH o 
~» CO = © 


SK ee 
orn 


675 


232, 437 
66, 585, 626 

164 

436 

61 

268 

84, 106, 120 

81, 85, 145 

71, 608* 

558 

416 

76, 210, 606 

344 

427 

146*, 813, 499 
86, 392, 480, 524 


380*, 413, 415*, 539, 595 


405, 480 
330, 473 


116, 256*, 323*, 578* 
612% 

77, 150 

375, 439* 

145, 270 


299% 
234 

72, 232, 313, 393 
299 

396 

67 

336, 433 

426, 430 

309*, 433, 514 
428 

318, 579 

579 

182, 276%, 564, 579* 
132, 564%, 579 
564, 579 


676 


Mark iii.. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iil. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 


Mark iv. 
Mark iy. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iy. 
Mark iy. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iy. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 


Mark iv 


Mark iv. 
Mark iy. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iy. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 


Mark v 
Mark v 
Mark y. 
Mark vy. 
Mark v 
Mark v. 
Mark v. 
Mark vy. 
Mark y. 
Mark vy. 
Mark v. 
Mark vy. 
Mark v. 
Mark y. 
Mark y. 
Mark vy. 
Mark v. 
Mark vy. 
Mark vy. 
Mark vy. 
Mark vy. 
Mark v. 


N. T. INDEX. 


579 

480, 489% 
277*, 366% 
277 

145, 252 
272 

293 

445 

406 


405% 

543 

514, 608 

227, 270 

459, 461*, 494, 503% 


279. 


192*, 369 
127, 287, 430, 511 
235 

446 

464, 528 

251* 

212, 517 

133, 242 

242 

111 

251%, 430 

150 

312, 315*, 538 
224 


147, 220 
330, 490, 499 
329, 334 

349 

585 

145 

334% 

349, 395 
514, 562 

268 


270, 336 


407 
87, 289, 315 
184*, 344 
366*, 486, 629 
344 

259 


155, 201, 413, 414%, 554* 


110, 433 


Mark v. 34 
Mark v. 37 
Mark y. 39 


Mark 
Mark 


Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 





Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 


v. 40 
Mark y. 41 
v. 42 


Ke OMAN DOF Ww DY = 


Go 68 ¢ tO WN ) ee S| = 
Cs cay ie The. ke a Len) Lee: “abs a Ice 


40 


79 

499 

495% 

159 

141, 182 

196, 446, 456, 477 


267 

344, 607 

114, 126 

420 

70, 143 

232 

249* 

316, 545, 578* 
579 

97*, 313 

227 

123 

123, 164, 628 
84, 118 

70, 330, 593* 
128, 218 

64 

202 

336*, 592 

71 

216 

233 

168* 

152* 
229*, 249, 392, 464* 
74, 249, 398, 401, 464* 
145 


330, 406*, 614 
392 
201, 306%, 584* 


530, 562 
253, 254, 562 

. 121, 319*, 621* 
71 

563, 600* 

499, 600* 

163 

199 

91, 114, 160, 429 
270 

91,°596* 

532, 533%, 624 


* 


Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
sMark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 


Mark viii 


Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
: Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 


Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 


31 


oowwnc§nk,» WO bl = 


— 
= © 


— 
ow to 


15 


N. T. INDEX. 


160 
437, 608 

148, 432, 602 
95, 230, 336, 562 
330 

; 514 
398 

430 

428 

270, 622 

150, 240, 603 
118 


526 
233, 409, 563 
87, 125 

374; 529, 605 
288%, 344, 428 
548% 

529* 

342, 365 
500* 

223, 313 

108, 174, 528 
213% 

149*, 336 
509 

489% 

187* 

114 

370 

168 

83 

221, 308 


79 

116, 267 

75, 350* 

348 

66 

299 

114, 313, 431 
451*, 499 
123, 297, 301, 367 
123 

167*, 457* 
78, 409, 462* 
218, 540 

515, 516, 554* 
278% 

307, 437 

83, 549 

568*, 632 


Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 





Mark ix. 


Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 


“I &> bo 


r4 





Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 
Mark 


4 


i‘ 


| Mark xi. 
| Mark xi. 
| Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 


24 
25 


— = 
no So 


13 


. 35 


SIO fF 


677 


76, 233, 313, 442 
109 

155 

142, 182 

526 

149, 202 

143, 147, 149, 457 
336* 

244 

233 

111*, 497 

313 

382, 383 

144, 226, 506 
243, 432 

241, 313 

241 

320 

390* 


116, 118, 342 
124 

432* 

415* 

84 

270, 288, 522* 
52) 

143 

210, 270, 348 
501 

313, 430, 470* 
214, 233 

437 

430 

420 

377*, 500 
196 

348*, 428 
430 

518 

122, 173, 337 
84, 229 

271, 552 

932 

206, 613* 
118, 148 

113 


296 
118 

79, 609% 
85 

430 


678 








N. T INDEX. 


Mark xi. & 396, 417 
Mark xi. 9 128 
Mark xi. 10 113 
Mark xi. 12. 77 
Mark xi. 13 300*, 445, 596* 
Mark xi. 14 476, 499, 501* 
Mark xi. 15 267 
Mark xi. 16 81 
Mark xi. 17 267, 276 
Mark xi. 18 128, 232, 270, 299 
Mark xi. 20: 424* 
Mark xi. 21 271, 276 
Mark xi. 22 186 
Mark xi. 23 261, 561 
Mark xi. 24 306 
Mark xi. 25 309% 
Mark xi. 27 128, 207 
Mark xi. 28 438 
Mark xi. 29 437 
Mark xi. 31 579 
Mark xi. 32 545, 579%, 626 
Mark xi. 33: 84 
Mark xii. 2 199, 288, 365* 
Mark xii. 4 468 
Mark xii. 5: 105, 583* 
Mark xii. 7 85, 114, 195 
Mark xii. 11 238 
Mark xii. 12 330, 437, 561* 
Mark xii. 13 128 
Mark xii. 14 285*, 474*, 509 
Mark xii. 16 85 
Mark xii. 17 232, 393 
Mark xii. 18 267 
Mark xii. 19 289 
Mark xii. 20 475 
Mark xii. 23 605* 
Mark xii. 24 161* 
Mark xii. 25 121, 123 
Mark xii. 26 63, 376*, 585 
Mark xii. 28 178*, 248 
Mark xii. 29 248 
Mark xii. 30 143, 368 
Mark xii. 31 239 
Mark xii. 32 85, 425* 
Mark xii. 33 118, 127, 420 
Mark xii. 34 499, 626 
Mark xii. 36 81 
Mark xii. 38 185, 223, 384, 468*, 577 
Mark xii. 39 183 
Mark xii. 40 160, 183*, 532, 564, 572, 579 
Mark xii. 41 268 
Mark xii. 44 528 


Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 


Mark xiii. 


Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 


Mark xiv. 





Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 





Mark xiv. 


Mark xiv. 





Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 


Mark xiv. 


Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 


Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 2 


Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 


Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 


ho = 


on - |! 


fel ete 
aon fk pe © 


= 


WOWHOWNNNNNY NHN HE 
FwWNnNOoVaAaN TWN SO CO 


CANO UrP ON = 


—_— 
no = 


36 


117, 526 

409, 506 

415 

85 

50] 

152, 163, 375, 416* 
213 

114, 299, 313, 501 
79, 396*, 412, 541 
431, 488, 502 
415, 417 

128 

124, 148, 506 
107, 304* 

333 — 

152 

133, 348 

125 

90, 313 

123, 605 

506 

129, 373 

84 

462 


299, 388, 424 
456, 503, 596* 
97*, 188, 381*, 544 


3Eg* 


70, 206, 250 
72, 218, 524 
222 

467* 

307 

331 

269, 285, 296 
83, 188 

233 

313, 525 
249 

429 ° 

320, 545 
57, 116, 345 
Air 

468 

57 

152, 582% 
331, 506 
297% 

118 

376*, 432 
168, 432, 442, 584 
549 


Mark xiv. 38 


Mark xiv. 
Mark xiy. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 


Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xy. 


Mark xy. ! 


Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xy. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
_ Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 
Mark xv. 


40 
43 
44 
46 
47 
49 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
58 


anroawrron bo = 


OR NC 


38 


N. T. INDEX. 


313 
83, 299 

128, 365% 

72, 275, 313 
275 

96, 117, 118, 253, 254 
317*, 620 
118 

223 

215% 

348, 433 

71, 270 

345 

118, 123, 511 
261 

199 

430 

80, 145 

490 

79 

88 

205 


113, 128* 
114 
203 
499 


408%, 628 
57, 124, 126, 436*, 539 
79, 313 

331, 571 

126 

226 

603 

591* 

190, 603 

140 

113, 348 

972*, 298, 542 


113, 365, 371 


Mark xv. 46 
Mark xv. 47 


Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 


Mark xvi. 


Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 


KH OMmMOAarrt WH 


ho 


_ 
Go 


Luke i. 14 


Luke i. 15 
Luke Tle 17 


Luke i. 18 
Luke i. 20 


Luke i. 21 


Luke i. 22 
Luke i. 23 
Luke i. 24 
Luke i. 25 
Luke i. 26 
Luke i. 27 





Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. ¢ 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 


31 


38 


Luke i. 39 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 


679 


426, 427 
190, 268 


113, 190, 276 
248, 343* 

362*, 364*, 366, 561 
271, 446 

345* 

538 

438, 521 

452% 

73 

259 

121 

124, 314 

524 

506 

428 


276*, 448*, 541, 545, 613* 
545 

545 

165, 288 

125 

127 

329, 608 

200*, 319, 321, 324, 353* 
430 

182 

90, 211, 232 

68, 506 

61, 146, 432 

152 

164, 349, 364*, 486*, 610 
232*, 515 

70, 150* 

296, 540 

, 88 

57, 422, 445 

219 

73 

585 

161, 299 

365* 

593*, 607* 

113. 

206, 409 

480 

178, 430 

64, 69, 110 

171, 173*, 280*, 395 
427 

591, 608 


680 


Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke 1. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 


Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Lnuke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 


73 


22 


N. T. INDEX. 


61 
608 

246*, 551 
337*, 338 

386 

585 

639 

393, 639 

75, 430 

125, 277%, 388 
201, 228 

202 

562, 577* 

324 

128 

228, 269*, 394*, 410 
109, 308* 

72, 622* 

174 

71 

469*, 551 
132, 562, 606 
164, 205, 376 


164, 225, 226, 326*, 577, 628* 


197, 321, 627 
230, 386 

152, 432, 607, 615 
611 

89, 431 


254*, 319, 365, 429, 534, 608 


244* 

125, 329, 330, 364* 
73 

211*, 385 

225, 424, 409 

208 

125 

118, 345* 

68, 526 

120 

427 

4, 113, 439 

132 

232 

57, 163 

324, 329, 438*, 605* 
147*, 325, 401, 428 
123, 562 

123, 325 

585 

122, 297, 481 

64, 325 








Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 
Luke ii. 


Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 


Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iy. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 


150* 

607 

174, 400 

519 

184*, 397 

310, 366, 462* 
138, 149, 604* 
427, 593 

275. 

68, 215*, 230, 531 
196 

188*, 226*, 231 
342, 344%, 484 
199 

276, 518 


61, 126, 138*, 219 
60, 122, 375 
591 

270 

614 

279 

482 

105, 240, 404 
232 

299 

261, 412* 
293, 525* 
61, 144 

393 

72, 323 
132, 232 
196, 349% 
60 

66 

67 

67 


77, 499, 544 
336 

271% 

214, 291 

210 

118 

326 

316 

382 

145, 150, 353* 
177, 211, 217 
223, 272% 

106 

212, 237 

847, 416*, 529 


Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 


Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke vy. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke vy. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke vy. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke y. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke vy. 
Luke vy. 
Luke v. 


Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 


NeTOINnDEX: 


61, 63, 296, 408* 

187, 508 

375 

71, 118, 329, 374, 603 
378 

348 

232 

234, 626 

123, 227, 344*, 483%, 544 
386, 584 

621 

84, 120, 544 

346, 514 

325, 471, 604 


199, 348, 404, 608 
404, 427 

335, 366* 

397*, 541, 580* 
394% 

325 

549 

163, 544 

209, 211, 348, 571 
122, 198, 545, 608 
146*, 481, 545, 579, 598 
268, 371, 411 
150, 413, 414* 
146*, 147, 150, 436 
207*, 428, 590 

80 

465 

80 

580 

158, 408* 

182 

66 

376 

271* 

85 

430, 523 

150 


100*, 116, 323, 431 
559 
296, 519 
323 
288 
123 
72 
‘76, 803, 308* 
185, 348 
370, 432* 
86 


| Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke yi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 


Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 


Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 





Luke vii. 


Ke OHO oOonrtnw —& & = 


Pm wb 69 Go Co G3 oo Go OD bo M bo wD we A See ES 
PoOn»DONTA PR We OKO UaAUnNpNererowvwoaonrawn 


681 


131 
141, 259 

o Sire 
268, 330, 515 

143, 396, 607 


121, 268, 588 
87 

Pip 

5OL 

592* 

540 

295, 331, 428 
118, 409, 477 
506 
112,°412, 525 
511 

150, 366*, 485 
111, 412, 488 
Tl], 155 

73, 225, 330, 469*, 603 
« 483 


275 

338 

76 

150* 

61 

442, 595 
349* 

490, 493 

590 
211*, 296, 438*, 605 
233 

190 

413, 414* 
548 

341, 594 

271 

323 

123, 260 

227 

110, 564* 
213*, 484 
564 

86, 483% 

86, 552 

117, 270, 336 
268, 344, 544 
304%, 541 
169, 240 


682 


Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 


Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke yiii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 


Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 


45 
47 
50 


ON oar We 


182, 183, 


N. T. INDEX. 


345, 592 


80, 132, 456* 


143, 271 


514 


138, 340, 366 
105, 225, 333, 576 


90, 482 
90, 123 


90, 132, 319 


270, 299 
287 
405* 
369 
524 
376 


300, 307*, 481 
306, 480*, 613* 


70 

588* 
105 
285, 519 
270 
128, 610 
445 
198, 585 
63, 218* 
514 

336 
311, 634 
416% 
515 

514 

400 

259 
268, 270 


213, 386, 499 


222, 268 


316*, 398, 488, 489 


400 
61, 123 
153* 
251%, 515 


Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 


Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 


1 
2 
4 
6 
7 
8 


9 

ll 
13 
18 
19 
20 


116, 239, 294*, 516* 


229*, 464 


106, 116, 340, 344, 428 


105*, 138 
549 

83, 371* 
87, 253 
543 


198*, 308, 506 
58, 116, 516*, 563 


70 

83, 340 
66, 319 
431* 


76, 158, 385 


367, 523 
427 
336 
83 
544 
370, 459* 


244, 308, 413 


202, 395 
393* 
168 . 

150, 608 


318, 594*, 607 
285*, 431, 595 


307 
362, 629 
213, 430 


70, 150, 249, 398, 472%, 527, 529 
270, 338, 559 


493, 501 


428, 429, 583 
86, 106, 366* 
306, 310, 579* 


407* 
253 
516* 
269 


274*, 499, 507 
232, 387%, 495*, 497 


126, 209 
153 

153*, 330 
436 

130*, 437 


67, 344, 432, 543 


400, 571 
205, 428 
143, 307 


Luke x. 36 
Luke x. 37 
Luke x. 40 
Luke x. 41 
Luke x. 42 


Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 


Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 


AnNoonr wd = 


— 
- © 


wm 69 CS 7 OO “Ga Oo O98 CO be No to te Re eS Oe ee 
NON oOuhRwWe O@MWPRNOVDVAN AWN 


44 


1 
2 
3 
f 
5 
6 
8 
2 


10 
11 


N. T. INDEX. 


130*, 396, 430 
376, 456 

85, 336, 406, 432 
610 

246*, 427, 456 


117, 440 
309 

97* 

111 

169, 280*, 286 
367* 

415 

45, 200*, 330, 479 
111 

512, 568% 
295% 

629% 

173 

445% 

152 


292 | 


31, 233 
483* 

559 

189* 

67 

238% 

143 

503 

308 

34, 338 

128, 201, 522 
128, 251 

84 

236 

445, 457%, 558 
396, 589 

123, 337, 410, 459 
129 

65, 74 

593% 


386" 
441*, 481 

364% 

83, 161* 

299, 329, 429 
172*, 510 

57, 144, 226%, 455% 
259 

992, 397 

128, 299, 407, 427% 





Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 


Luke xii. ! 


Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 


Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Take xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 


ee 


—t pet 
oe 


683 

133 

376 

228, 409 
223, 367 
71, 78, 602 
MOT aD 
155, 472* 
396 

183, 218, 256%, 522*, 588 
397 

94 

478*, 480 
493 

437 

155, 456, 548*, 549 
183 

155 

176, 367* 
607, 608* 
410 

393, 410 
552, 614 
422 


161, 226, 405, 483*, 589* 


164, 229, 522 
143*, 448* 
297 

449% 

392* 

116*, 265 
427, 454, 502 
506* 


376, 623* 

240, 271*, 404%, 508 
385% 

169 

297, 406 

296*, 583, 600* 
250, 424%, 486 
183, 271 

73 

58, 218 

129 

197, 218, 250, 563 
429 

456 

125, 514 

256, 400 

509 

563 

110, 121, 427 

75, 88, 309 


684 


Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 


Luke xiv: 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 


Luke xiv. 


Luke xiv. 


Luke xiv. 


Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 


Luke xiv. 


Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 


Luke xv. 
Luke xy. 
Luke xv. 
Luke 
Luke 
Luke xy. 
Luke xv. 
Luke xv. 
Luke xv. 
Luke xv. 
Luke xy. 
Luke xv. 
Luke xv. 
Luke 
Luke xv. 
Luke xy. 
Luke xv. 


XV. 
XY. 


Luke xvi 
Luke xvi 
Luke xvi 
Luke xvi 
Luke xvi 


Luke xvi. 
Luke xvi. 10 


. 
. 


2 
ou 
iw 

6 
8 


9 


N. T. INDEX. 


60 
590 
590 
83, 152, 330, 407 


296, 298%, 456, 506, 508, 528 


218 
128 

143, 202, 521 
169, 632 
268%, 593, 602 
459, 503 

74, 428, 459% 
488, 497 

69 
276*, 423, 545, 591* 
259, 276*, 548 
84 

128, 520 

127 

198, 482 

126, 479 

480 

333 

384 

465 

213*, 488 


426 
297, 407 
128, 256% 
128, 256* 
63, 400* 
632 


198*, 201, 370 


201, 241*, 558 
608% 

319, 337, 615 

90 

87 

121, 199 

117, 169, 299 

270, 330, 456 

125*, 230 


155 


76, 143, 521, 602, 614, 628* 


227, 346*, 427 

196, 589 

155, 188 

203*, 237, 238, 240, 598* 
367 

59 





Luke xvi. 11 


Luke xvi. 
Luke xvi. 
Luke xvi. 
Luke xvi. 
Luke xvi. 
Luke xvi. 
Luke xvi. 
Luke xvi. 


Luke xvi. £ 


Luke xvi. 
Luke xvi. 
Luke xvi. 
Luke xvi. 
Luke xvi. 
Luke xvi. 


Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 
Luke xvii. 


Luke xviii. 
| Luke xviii. 
Luke xviii. 
Luke xviii. 
Luke xviii. 
Luke xviii. 


” ”) 


Luke xviii. 
Luke xviii. 
Luke xviii. 
Luke xviii. 
Luke xviii. 
Luke xviii. 


549 
550 

64, 173, 332 

134, 343 

422 

122* 

229 

72, 273* 

i re 

176, 323 

176*, 344 

201 

76 

109, 287, 393*, 477, 629 
67 

123, 477 


328, 482* 
241*, 337, 432, 632 
82, 203, 233 
304 

74 

88, 89, 168, 297* 
308* 

112, 385 

207 

377 

122 

510 

511*, 616* 
296 

488, 501, 522 
366, 407, 591 
371 

71, 26 

578 

205 

310 

116, 173, 266* 


329% 
116, 221 

621 

444, 479, 595 
237 

207, 212, 393, 494*, 506, 
508, 552 
510* 

109, 301 

173 

183, 440 

203, 274% 
330, 430, 500 


Luke xviii. 
Luke xviii. 
Luke xviii. 
Luke xyiii. 
Luke xviii. 
Luke xviii. 
Luke xviii. 
Luke xviii. 
Luke xviii. 


Like xviii 


Luke xviii. 
Luke xviii. 
Luke xviii. 
Luke xviii. 
Luke xviii. 


Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 


1 
2 
3 


N. T. INDEX. 


241% 
108 

506 

551 

253 

319 

116 
482, 519 
506, 508 
211* 
147*, 227 
67, 404 
299 

150 

207 


431 


149, 150, 160* 
70, 268, 371, 626 


Luke xix. 4 207, 288, 429, 590, 603, 632* 


Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix, 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 
Luke xix. 


Luke xx. 


Luke xx. 
Luke xx. 


5 

7 

8 

11 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
23 
27 
28 
29 
35 
36 
37 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 


2 
Luke xx. 4 
7 
g 


Luke xx. 10 
Luke xx. 11 
Luke xx. 12 


333 
395* 


206 


152, 275, 628 


72 

79 

303* 
206, 330 
428 


384 


163, 164, 373, 395*, 516, 526 


85 
87, 279% 
222, 408 


125, 197, 227, 438, 599% 


436 
364* 
228 


550 


71, 87, 299, 429 


85, 441, 602 


420, 509 
481 
230 
124, 199 
468* 
105, 468 








Luke xx. 14 


Luke xx. 
Luke xx. 


16 
19 


Luke xx. 20 
Luke xx. 22 
Luke xx. 24 
Luke xx. 25 
Luke xx. 26 
Luke xx. 27 
Luke xx, 34 
Luke xx. 35 
Luke xx. 36 
Luke xx. 37 
Luke xx. 40 
Luke xx. 42 
Luke xx. 43 
Luke xx. 46 
Luke xx. 47 


Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi, 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 


Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Lnke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 


685 


287 
500 
405 


128, 202*, 321 


509 
313, 582 
109 
202, 232 
532*, 604 
92 


133, 200, 609* 


490*, 491 
63 

456, 499 
81, 112 
527, 605 
468* 

86 


242 

340 

392, 574* 
504 

439, 637 
84 

48] 

589 

364, 506 
274*, 313 
147* 

325 

128 

297, 348* 


65, 120, 121, 552 
371, 420*, 430 


614 
372, 594* 
506 

83, 464 
415 


53 
109, 299 
324 
285 
207 
603 
74, 519 


329, 339, 466* 
297, 499, 506, 508 


193 


116, 153%, 382 
403, 411, 513, 634, 635* 


686 


Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 


Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 


” > 


Luke xxii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
. Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 


21 
23 


53 


N. T. INDEX. 


374 

109, 299%, 445, 543 
244, 613% 
587* 

129, 169 

86, 289 

325, 610 

89, 336 

319, 420 

507 

201 

582% 

109, 513 
375* 

71, 230*, 427 
76, 432, 600 
43] 

371 

432 

62, 279*, 341, 388, 509 
118 

201 

74, 377, 407 
155, 207 

183 

178* 

463 

430, 602 

275 


506 


113, 515, 516 
203, 604 

128 

621° 

113, 298 

67, 428 

367* 

261 

428 

129, 350*, 376, 405, 439, 
467, 518 

113 

180, 203, 431 
219 

121, 430 
183, 222, 408 
218, 285, 550 
530% 

122, 552 

168 

253 

392 





Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiil. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 


Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 


John i. 1 
John i. 2 
John i. 3 
John i. 4 


20 


175 

112 

159, 582* 

205, 413 

436* 

131* 

125 

344, 409 

; 524, 528 
146*, 348, 421, 563 
499 

276 


207, 248, 275, 345 
362, 364*, 369 
174 

175, 376 

131, 190 

233, 514 

348, 557 

212, 268 

112, 150 

| 326 

57, 103, 112, 630 
523, 552 

449 


21 114, 254*, 391*, 444, 559, 625 


23 
25 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
35 
36 
37 
39 
4] 
42 
46 
47 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 


AS4 

183, 230, 324 

268, 370, 420, 633* 
472 

121, 825, 405* 

71 

370 

268, 348 

219, 386 

150 

350 

"63, 552* 

371 

199 

123, 231% 

213, 393, 396, 624* 

297 

143, 603, 607% 

498 

210 

349 


122*, 181, 365, 405, 551 
122, 124 

178, 379*, 610 

114 


John i. 5 

John i. 6 

John i. 7 

John i. 8 

John i. 9 

John i. 10 
John i. 11 
John i. 12 
John i. 13 
John i. 14 
John i. 15 
John i. 16 
John i. 17 
John i. 18 
John i. 19 
John i. 20 
John i. 21 
John i. 22 
John i. 25 
John i. 26 
John i. 27 
John i. 28 
John i. 29 
John i. 30 
John i. 31 
John i. 32 
John i. 33 
John i. 34 
John i. 36 
John i. 38 
John i. 39 
John i. 40 
John i. 41 
John i. 42 
John i. 43 
‘John i. 44 
John i. 45 
John i. 46 
John i. 47 
John i. 49 
John i. 50 
John i. 51 
John i. 52 


John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 9 


TO oF ON 


fo 0) 


WNeele INDEX: 


270 

149, 350, 365*, 585 
- 458% 

114, 316*, 317* 
132, 349* 

609 

592* 

134 

177*, 488 


122, 193, 201, 564*, 617*, 630 


229, 244% 274 
364*, 437% 

379*, 639 

160, 341, 413, 415* 
438% 

479, 545, 610 

106, 114, 476 

620 

479*, 488, 491 
217, 261, 412*, 537 
335, 337 

61 

266 

153, 244* 

217, 561 

121, 266, 573 

408, 412*, 573 
273* 


230, 268, 298, 


154, 537, 563 
60, 153, 430 
266, 313, 537, 563 


133, 267, 537, ! 

5 

329, 341, 372, 537, 551 
11 


162, 239 
537, 553 


61, 187, 540 

519, 540 

540 

211, 274, 587, 585 

307 

398*, 401, 402, 523 

201, 313, 537, 539 

313, 314, 537, 540 

85, 198, 268, 274, 343, 540 


John 
John 
John 
John 
John 
‘John 
John 
John 
John 
John 
John 
John 


John i 
John ii 
John ii 
John ii 


ii. 
li. 
ii. 
ii. 
li. 
ii. 
ti] 
ii. 
il. 
ii. 
ii. 
i. 
il. 


John iii 


John iii. 


John iii 
John iii 


John iii. 
John i 


John iii 


John i 
John i 
John iii. 
John iii. 


John iii 
John iii 


John iii. 


John i 
John iii. 
John i 
John i 
John ili. 
John iii. 


John ili 


John i 


John iii. 
John i 
| 
| 
| 
| 


John iii 
| John iii 
John iii 
John iii 
John ili 
John ili 
John iii 


John iii 





John iv. 1 
John iv. 2 
John iv. 4 


687 


110, 152, 524 
61, 110 

143, 230, 519 

539 

106, 128, 539 
429, 439, 539, 559 
314, 539 

89, 185 

445% 

312, 385*, 537 
71, 218, 250 

531 

123, 163, 627* 
67, 68, 155, 385, 410, 638 
143, 638 

115*, 339 


366, 563, 58 
84, 122, 5 


$31, 637 
587, 630 
178, 639 
298, 472, 510, 5 


114, 115*, 537 

437, 517, 561 

235*, 478 

341*, 431, 537 

106%, 540 

133, 172*, 281, 301, 610 
537, 540 


j 
129, 155, 630 
111, 639 
122, 155, 639 
268, 376, 539, 593* 
144, 471, 514 
368 
212* 
499 
79, 199, 466% 
332, 537 


m Co Co Oo 
ou 


ho 
a - 
a = 
PS 


144*, 239, 268, 540 
150, 444 
283*, 540 


688 


John iv. 
John iv. 


” 9 


5 


N. T. INDEX. 


113, 396, 444, 471, 540 


6 134, 367*, 392*, 540, 541, 562, 


? 


John iv. 7 


John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iy. 
John iy. 
John iy. 
John iy. 
John iy. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iy. 
John iy. 
John iv. 
John iy. 
John iy. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iy. 
John iy. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
‘John iy. 
John iy. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iy. 
John iy. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iy. 
John iy. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iy. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 


8 

9 

10 
11 
12 
14 
15 
16 
i 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 


John y. 1 
John y. 2 


‘John y. 


3 


618* 

537 

288, 562 

88, 152, 365, 523, 537 
152*, 537, 562 
132, 494*, 524, 537 
239, 519 

199, 397*, 507 
318, 488, 537 

537 

537 

110, 464% 

537, 551 


183, 265, 296, 537 
480, 5 

111, 210, 420*, 424%, 448, 528 
538, 

308, 

537, 

376, 393*, 
396, 

114, 511 

86 

268, 545, 592* 
511* 

337*, 338, 537 
313, 539, 589, 626, 641% 
133, 459% 

114 

272 

134, 540, 550 
177, 296, 335, 540 
540, 619 

114, 435, 540, 619% 
106 

447, 454* 

134, 275, 410 

61, 275 

70, 155, 274, 336 
65, 506, 507*, 508 
79, 330* 

163, 537 

207 

230 

422, 519, 582 

604 


or or or or 
© mw un 
ey C2 ee 


ANS 
ue 
nee 


118, 125% 
112, 267*, 392*, 592* 
128, 520 





John vy. 
John vy. 
John vy. 
John v. 
John v. 
John vy. 
John vy. 
John v. 
John v. 
John y. 
John v. 
John vy. 
John v. 
John v. 
John v. 
John v. 
John v. 
John vy. 
John y. 
John v. 
John y. 
John v. 
John v. 
John y. 
John y. 
John vy. 
John vy. 
John y. 
John y. 
John vy. 
John y. 
John vy. 
John y. 
John y. 
John vy. 
John vy. 
John vy. 
John vy. 
John y. 


John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 


4 413* 
5 59, 230*, 250, 256% 
6 537 
7 372, 386, 537, 599* 
8 314, 537 
9 539 
10 331, 340 
ll 64, 160, 228, 314 
12 135 
13 91, 268, 341 
14 501 
15 268 
16 64, 268 
18 154, 268 
19 261, 306, 307, 543 
20 242, 287 
21 . 123, 440, 541 
22 131, 548* 
23 475 
24 273% 
25 199, 296 
26 266 
27 439* 
28 | 82 
29 354 
30 495, 496, 499 
32 109, 225, 513 
35 114, 405, 614 
36 133*, 245% 
37 488, 489 
38 489* 
39 114 
4] 365 
42 185, 263, 482, 626 
43 390, 494, 537 
44 152, 331*, 464*, 573, 578 
45 109, 233, 273*, 537 
46 66, 304 
47 285, 292, 477, 478 
1 191*, 207 
2 375*, 515 
3 106, 428, 456 
5 268, 279, 287, 607 
6 150, 564 
" 335, 337 
9 117, 141, 169 
10 78,74, 230*, 313,443, 452*, 456* 
13 132, 201, 208, 514 
14 114 
15 228, 607 
16 275 
17 86, 429, 494, 596* 


' John vi. 18 
John vi. 19 
John vi. 21 
John vi: 22 
John vi. 23. 
John vi. 24 
John vi. 26 
John vi. 27 
John vi. 29 
John vi. 30 
John vi. 31 
John vi. 32 
John vi. 33 
John vi. 35 
John vi. 36 
John vi. 37 
‘John vi. 38 
John vi. 39 
John vi. 40 
John vi. 41 
John vi. 42 
John vi. 43 
John vi. 45 
John vi. 46 
John vi. 50 
John vi. 51 
Jehn vi. 52 
John vi. 54 
John vi. 55 
John vi. 56 
John vi. 57 
John vi. 58 
John vi. 60 
John vi. 62 
John yi. 63 
John vi. 64 
John vi. 65 
John vi. 66 
John vi. 68 
John vi. 69 
John vi. 70 
John vi. 71 


John vii. 1 
John vii. 2 
John vii. 3 
John vii. 4 
John vii. 6 
John vii. 7 
John vii. 8 
John vii. 10 
John vii. 12 
John yii. 13 


N. T. INDEX. 


435 

230, 250, 374*, 471 
268, 330, 375*, 467*, 614 
79, 131, 275, 568* 
564* 

57, 268 

496 

496%, 528, 534 

57, 159, 166, 338, 628 
152 

106*, 588* 

276 

343 

17, 506, 639 

439% 

178 

287 

83, 574, 589 

144, 338 

343, 431 

159 

376 

175, 189* 

597 

114, 199, 343, 366, 630 
86, 87, 114, 343, 443 
212 

552 

465% 

552 

399*, 440, 549 

86, 198 

551 

159, 600* 

114, 499, 538, 609 
124, 268, 475*, 543 
368 

367, 550 

279, 549 

553* 

436% 

70, 190 


268 
528 
79 
292, 630% 
132 
614* 
596% 
541, 617 
105 
185* 
87 














John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
9” 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 


! John vii. 


John vii. 
John yii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 


John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viil. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 


” ” 


John viii. 


14 
15 
16 
17 
” 

18 
ig 
21 
22 
23 
24 
26 
27 
28 
30 
31 
32 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 


42. 


43 
44 
45 
48 
49 
51 
52 


689 


270 
340, 483*, 496 
496* 


107, 293, 332, 373, 509, 537, 


541, 614 
537 

271, 508 

59*, 117 

271, 368, 421, 597 
459*, 508 

224, 314 

511 

298, 442, 510, 626 
437 

437 

58, 163, 511* 

288 

58, 552 


187*, 300*, 472, 511 


53, 494 

77, 293, 525 
89, 550, 574 
163 

107 

447* 

265, 411 
399 

330, 437 
157*, 632 
366, 420 


442, 484, 486*, 515 


267, 523*, 588 
265, 266, 311*s 


123 
72 

268 

394, 467 

268 

249, 621 

506, 513 

267, 441, 472 
583* 

293, 558 

538 

304, 488 

275, 385*, 480 
387, 388 

253, 511* 

109 


46, 167*, 230, 438, 457, 464* 


549 
416, 442, 451 


690 


John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
A513) 
John viii. 
John viii. 
. 09 


John viii 


John viii 


John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
» John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 


27 
29 
33 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
44 
45 
51 
52 
53 
54 


56 
58 


omonNTonrarhr whd = 


—_ — 
= dae =) 


28 


38 


N. T. INDEX. 


222 

277% 

271 

295 

413, 414*, 480 
455* 

305 

199%, 272, 528 
538 

304 

114*, 138, 145*, 308, 467* 
457 

293, 506 

506, 519 

545, 577* 
293, 574*, 626 
195*, 209, 482 
339* 

267, 330, 523 
253*, 469% 


139,367 
58, 459%, 545 

177, 316, 317*, 488, 514 
296, 297, 332, 481 
144, 609 

427 

413, 415*, 563 

114, 268 

209 

72 

155, 415*, 427, 456 
58, 267, 528 

72, 443 

298 

‘ 83, 550 
275, 296 

114 

114 

83, 150, 152, 155, 298 
254, 262, 294, 336 
153 

298*, 341* 

155, 456 

331 

222 

66 

72; 184*, 446* 

160, 199, 549 

70, 305*, 477, 499 
437, 620% 

273, 274*, 540 

105, 210 





John ix. 41 


John x. 1 
John x. 3 
John x. 4 
John x. 5 
John x. 6 
John x. 7 
John x. 8 
John x. 9 
John x. 10 
John x. 11 
John x. 12 
John x. 18 


John x. 15 
John x. 16 
John x. 17 
John x. 18 
John x. 19 
John x. 20 
John x. 21 
John x. 22 
John x. 23 


John x. 25 © 


John x. 27 
John x, 28 
John x. 29 
John x. 30 
John x. 32 
John x. 33 
John x. 35 
John x. 36 
John x. 37 
John x. 38 
John x. 41 


John xi. 1 
John xi. 2 
John xi. 3 
John xi. 4 
John xi. 5 
John xi. 6 
John xi. 7 
John xi. 8 
John xi. 1 
John xi. 12 
John xi. 13 
John xi. 15 
John xi. 18 
John xi. 19 
John xi. 21 
John xi. 25 


804 


483 
154, 537, 540 
514, 537 
84, 223, 507, 610 
168, 298* 
114, 187* 
372, 514 
540 
606 
106*, 182, 524, 539 
514, 540 

206, 373 


382, 440 

520 

537 

370 

399 

456 

333, 514 

112 

67, 385 

437, 514 

514 

83, 506 

143, 144, 242 
152, 518 
265*, 368, 412, 525 
152, 228, 412 
478 

580 

478% 

553 

144 


364*, 370, 411* 
227, 343*, 562 

543 

383*, 405 

268, 443 

159, 165, 230, 541, 576 
603 

436, 472 

608* 

292 

531 

80, 124, 339*, 459* 
112, 195, 372, 471, 557* 
275 

304 

87, 114, 518 


John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 


John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 


John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
Jolin xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 


26 


"OoOm~nnaw by = 


pad peel 
pl 


co Co Co us Shoe tO eho UN bo oe ee et 
ReESdSeoatranwseSanranap 


N. T. INDEX. 


506 
273 

275, 456, 563* 
341, 626 

155, 159%, 304 
215*, 527 

70, 149, 337 

396*, 430 

313 

76 

396 

929, 278*, 313, 552 
168 


128, 284* 

155, 192, 607* 
118, 170*, 341 
382 

70, 71, 562 

577 

421 

539 

506, 508* 

72, 275, 294, 336 


123, 557* 
268, 593* 

97*, 201*, 525*, 606 
116, 621* 

116, 206, 268 
274* 

150 

123, 515 

254*, 336 

191, 550 

106, 515, 526 
270, 603* 

549 

393, 541 

123, 270 

334, 347, 515 
353, 593* 

331, 370 

261, 339%, 460* 
83 

265 

442 

582*, 586 

* 334, 522 

86, 291 

70, 226 

261 

296, 538 


John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 


John xiii. 


. 
39 9 


John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xili. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xili. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 


John xiv. 
John xiv. 
John xiv. 
John xiv. 
John xiv. 
John xiv. 
John xiv. 
John xiv. 
John xiv. 
John xiv. 
John xiv. 
Jokn xiv. 


36 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
46 
47 
48 
49 


1 


a 
- 


CON aar |S WD 


oOowwwoweNDNWNN NNW ND HS KR eS eS Ee 
oh WONDNroonrurhr_ nontoar NE © 


23 


John xiv. 24 


691 


238 


155, 459, 494, 522*, 588 


457 

444 

241% 

456, 496, 497 
527 

144 

160, 483 

611 


155, 339, 344, 372, 396, 460, 


531, 572, 638 
252% 

106, 272 

176*, 267* 

106, 614* 

88, 265*, 444, 508 
543 


552, 582 


353, 562 
271, 275 

88, 292, 528, 549 
239, 242, 488 
296%, 612 

316, 317%, 430, 620 
233, 268 

308*, 318 

407* 

243*, 265, 311* 
405%, 626 


158*, 313, 559, 577, 580 


277% 

292* 

440 

336, 464*, 524*, 550 
173, 386 


317, 501 
265 
273%, 304 
549 
585 
814 
530 
488 
585 
114 
562 
256 
475 


692 


John xiy. 
. John xiv. 
John xiv. 
John xiv. 
John xiv. 


John xy. 
John xv. 
John xv. 
John xv. 
John xv. 
John xy. 
John xv. 
John xy. 
John xv. 
John xy. 
John xy. 
John xv. 
John xv. 
John xy. 
John xv. 
John xv. 
John xv. 
John xy. 
John xv. 
John xv. 
John xy. 


26 
27 
28 
30 
31 


OMAN norh wh = 


—_ 
—~ © 


Le cee co cee coe cee ee 
omar nor WL WO 


20 
21 


N. T INDEX. 


227, 609 
186, 609, 639 


304* 


60, 218, 436, 437 
285 


132 


58, 111, 148, 343*, 483, 537,574 


399, 537 


314, 384, 471, 537, 541, 582 
471%, 499*, 537, 578, 582 
141, 277%*, 293, 522, 537, 632* 


310, 537, 541 


161, 278*, 337*, 338*, 537 


537, 541 

153*, 537 

. 137, 537 
537 

338, 537, 539, 595* 
537 

537, 619 

78, 537, 607 

336, 537 

537 

304, 429, 537, 609 
163, 292*, 537 
537 


John xv. 22 77,192*,305*,373,477, 537,595 


John xy. 
John xv. 
John xv. 


John xv. 2 


John xy. 


John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 


23 
24 
25 


537 

77, 271, 439, 475, 537 
317*, 588, 620 

141, 365, 429, 562 
267, 443 


265, 339, 451*, 460 
124 

320, 337 

421, 520 

273 

332 

82, 308 

266 

266 

75, 203, 265, 366*, 589 
330 

87,90, 184 

90, 558 

227, 499 

459, 499 

296, 481 

373 

112, 150*, 365 

122, 339, 387* 


John xvi. 31 
John xvi. 32 
John xvi. 33 


John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvil. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 


John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. ‘ 
John xviii. 
John xviii: 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 


John xviii 


John xviii. 


omONDOoOr WwW WD 


— — 
— © 


Honwnonwnnnd KF HK EF = = 
aon PR CO NW ODO I Of PO 


508 
339, 460, 516* 
291 


75, 79, 145, 185*, 289 
161, 290, 337, 338, 525 
276* 

163 

76 

76 

553 

159, 166, 421 
273*, 389*, 389, 562 
163, 183, 265 

508 

272 

336, 410 

538 

277*, 440 

274*, 582 

585 

123, 265 

439 

225 


67 

113, 376 

106, 368, 377, 471, 472* 
113, 563, 582 
73, 109 

582 

98, 182, 559 
148*, 313, 512* 
| Q75* 

60 

319 

519 

395 

117, 610 

226 

292 

275 

158, 159 

267, 288 

304, 477 

581* 

70 

151, 261 

304 

444, 457, 512* 
eee 

339 

582 


John xix. 2 

John xix. 3 

John xix. 4 

John xix. 5 

John xix. 6 

John xix. 7 

John xix. 9 

John xix. 10 
John xix. 11 
John xix. 12 
John xix. 14 
John xix. 16 
John xix. 19 
John xix. 21 
John xix. 22 
John xix. 23 
John xix. 24 
John xix. 25 
John xix. 26 
John xix. 28 
John xix. 29 
John xix. 30 
John xix. 31 
John xix. 32 
John xix. 35 
John xix. 36 
John xix. 37 
John xix. 38 
John xix. 39 
John xix. 41 


John xx. 1 
John xx. 2 
John xx. 3 
John xx. 4 
John xx. 6 
John xx. 7 
John xx. 9 
John xx. 11 
John xx. 12 
John xx. 13 
John xx. 14 
John xx. 15 
John xx. 16 
John xx. 17 
John xx. 18 
John xx. 19 
”) >) > 
John xx. 2 
John xx. 22 
John xx. 23 
John xx. 24 
John xx. 25 


N. T. INDEX. 


226, 430 
77, 182 

631 

564, 631% 

128, 610 

~ 998 

267 

508, 609 

242, 305* 

429 

124, 189* 

456 

374, 376 

501 

271, 521 

111, 176, 562 
257, 285, 373, 502 
60, 131*, 190, 394 
183 

459*, 561 

201 

271 

70, 514*, 561, 562, 563 
70, 115, 576 

340 

162 

158 

632 

86 

499, 524 


106, 248, 343*, 366*, 396 


420, 522, 588* 
270, 519 

69, 464, 604* 
267 

376, 415*, 632 
123, 274 

395, 396 

173, 384, 395, 591* 
298 

537 

147*, 537, 632 
537 

201, 428, 537 

537 


123, 159, 176, 234, 248, 267, 


473*, 585 
271, 541, 585 
312 

272, 291, 293 
483 

66 





John xx. 


John xx. 27 
John xx. 28 
John xx. 29 
John xx. 80 


John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 


Acts i. 1 
Acts i. 2 
Acts i. 3 
Acts i. 4 
Acts i. 5 
Acts i. 6 
Acts i. 7 
Acts i. 8 
Acts i. 10 
Acts i. 11 
Acts i. 12 
Acts i. 18 
Acts 1. 14 
Acts 1. 15 
Acts i. 16 
Acts i. 17 
Acts i. 18 
Acts 1. 19 
Acts i. 20 
Acts i. 21 
Acts i. 22 
Acts i. 24 
Acts i. 25 


CSCoaoananrrtr WN = 


mw whwWhN 6&6 SB PM RR eB eS ee 
oor WP rH COON oO Oo — & OK © 


698 


123, 472, 537, 585 
610 
183* 
272* 
525 


191, 374*, 443 
109, 190, 518, 520 
265, 284, 537 

85, 408 

511 

313, 371, 618 

65, 188, 216, 370, 557, 562 
275 

90, 199, 370, 589 
250, 341 

613* 

607* 

123 

85, 190, 549 

313, 604 

545 

253, 257, 268 

407* 

169, 550, 562, 586* 
55, 152, 296, 586 
265 

343, 517 

168, 333*, 482*, 525 


183, 244, 256, 549, 559, 575*, 621* 


164, 275; 542, 543, 556* 
143, 188, 207, 575* 
199, 545, 580 

162*, 216, 412*, 540 
105, 509 

195*, 441* 

125*, 407, 420 

174, 175, 348, 438 

85, 110, 430, 523, 549, 610 
182* 

113, 128, 131, 190, 518, 520 
122, 521 

250, 562, 563 

183, 525 

200% 

88, 206, 514 

112 

286, 435 

160, 407, 444, 624 

164, 621 

85, 152, 158*, 342* 
432, 631 


694 


Acts 1. 26 


Acts ii. 
Acts H. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ul. 
Acts. i. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts li. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 


Acts iii 


Acts iil 
Acts iii 
Acts iii 


Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
» JO 
> 11 
12 


23 


33 


N. T. INDEX: 


408, 433% 


328, 439 

348, 439 

516*, 539 

539, 614 

370, 407 

154, 516, 528 
112, 439 

400, 439 

345, 347 

303*, 516 

183, 391, 610 

77, 199, 370 

77, 438 

531 

330, 396 

379, 523 

73, 148 

31 

88, 397% 

71, 425* 

156, 592 

201, 376% 

113, 384, 549, 585 
226, 331, 455*, 603 
482, 592 

110 

214*, 237%, 435, 531, 559 
81, 215 

111* 

435 

393*, 397, 587 
307, 415* 

545 

433 

348 

65, 156, 211*, 379%, 439, 527 
306 
198, 401* 

110* 


408* 

171, 227, 325, 354*, 522, 543 
270, 354, 543, 608, 609 
233, 313 

593 

211 

192, 202* 

553 

66, 392, 626 

67, 392, 394, 526 

183, 261, 326*, 610, 617 














Acts iii. 13 
Acts iii. 14 
Acts iii. 15 
Acts iii. 16 
Acts iii. 17 
Acts ifi. 18 
Acts ili. 19 
Acts iii. 20 
Acts iii. 21 
Acts ill. 22 
Acts iii. 28 
Acts ili. 24 
Acts ili, 25 
Acts iii. 26 


Acts iv. 1 
Acts iv. 2 
Acts iy. 8 
Acts iv. 4 
Acts iv. 5 
Acts iv. 7 
Acts iv. 9 
Acts iv. 11 
Acts iy. 12 
Acts iv. 13 
Acts iv. 15 
Acts iv. 16 
Acts iv. 17 
Acts iv. 18 
Acts iv. 19 
Acts iv. 20 
Acts iy. 21 
Acts iy. 22 
Acts iv. 28 
Acts iv. 24 
Acts iv. 27 
Acts iv. 29 
Acts iv. 33 
Acts iy. 84 
Acts iv. 35 
Acts iv. 36 


Acts v. 1 
Acts v. 2 
Acts v. 4 
Acts v. 5 
Acts v. 7 
Acts v. 8 
Acts v. 10 
Acts v. 12 
Acts v. 18 
Acts v. 14 
Acts v. 15 


149, 157*, 400, 575 
126, 523 

123 

133, 144, 378, 394* 
402* 

606 

310*, 462%. 

462 

163, 462, 558 

82, 307, 401, 545 
148*, 156, 307, 480 
370, 633* 

114, 163, 225 
134*, 329* 


207, 427 

128, 133, 389 

396, 430, 590 

84, 276 
146*, 323, 415, 590 
390, 420, 527, 632* 
185%, 448 

114, 157* 

217*, 454*, 493, 
268, 289*, 434, 544, 626 
593* 

284, 331 

393, 396, 466*, 481 
344, 481, 488 

518 

475, 481, 498* 

109, 299, 343* 

196, 239, 531, 596 
128 

152, 404, 552 

439, 518 

431 

78, 407, 435, 550 
384 

306, 403 

120, 230, 562 


62, 171 

57, 62, 90, 199 

212, 348%, 355, 495*, 497, 585 
344, 408 

58, 483, 563 

206, 298 

342, 405 

65, 67, 379, 564%, 607 
564 

564 

374, 876, 400*, 431, 564% 


Acts y. 16 
Acts v. 17 
Acts v. 19 
Acts v. 20 


Acts v. 


21 


Acts v. 22 


Acts vy. 
Acts v. 
Acts v. 


23 
24 
26 


Acts v. 28 


Acts v. 
Acts v. 
Acts v. 
Acts v. 
Acts vy. 
Acts v. 


29 
30 
31 
32 
35 
36 


Acts v. 37 
Acts v. 38 


Acts vy. 


39 


Acts vy. 40 
Acts v. 42 


Acts vi. 
, Acts vi. 
Acts vi. 
Acts vi. 
Acts vi. 
Acts vi. 
Acts vi. 
Acts yi. 
Acts vi. 
Agts vi. 
Acts vi. 


Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 


ms OOnNrnork | NH = 


N. T. INDEX. 


516, 526 

520, 608 

176, 380 

237*, 238*, 634 

407* 

« 251* 

372, 472, 545, 604 
129, 275, 308, 439, 518 
217, 288, 377, 505* 
112, 201, 393, 408, 466, 481 
188*, 332, 518, 520, 595* 
374 

214*, 228 318 

191% 

60, 392, 549, 557*, 610 
170*, 184, 261, 433* 
106, 621 

296*, 427, 519 

122, 296% 

393 

345*, 435 


28, 268, 405 
85, 87 

375 

128 

28, 103, 113, 120, 214, 223 
632 

268, 435 

113 

112, 129*, 420 
67 

128, 382 


330, 341 
429 

329, 413, 415, 422 
276*, 331, 397 

61, 113, 218 

61, 376 

73, 138*, 228, 527 

. 407 

63, 345, 347 

113, 250, 391* 

519 

70, 90, 163, 190, 206 
163 

157, 326*, 329 

212, 248% 

73, 143, 147, 228*, 528 
227% 

258, 632* 

269, 841, 435 











Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts Vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts Vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 


Acts vili. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viil. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viil. 
Acts viii. 
Acts Viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viil. 
Acts Viii. 
Acts Viii. 
Acts viil. 
Acts vili. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts Vili. 
| Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viil. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 


Oot m oP © b= 


—_—_ 
=_ © 


wonwnd vo wo WYN WNW ND & S&S KH BK eS eS 
CoonNnrourNFR OWONQO a FP WS WO 


695 


71, 90, 269 
121, 387* 
106* 

114, 585 
313 

354 

63, 67, 159 
121, 524 
82, 85 
118, 421 
71, 90 

67, 110, 148, 182, 300* 
232 

175, 251, 469*, 512* 
75, 210 

66 

71, 90, 174 
71 

71 

554 

215, 440 
228*, 398* 
254 

549 

226 


113, 133, 400, 443 
256, 276, 443 

113, 443, 552 

559 

113, 125, 145 

118, 329, 435, 518 
443, 584 

443 

170*, 443 

114, 370 

218, 329, 334 

113 

348, 435 

259, 271 

71, 122, 373 
350*, 430, 499, 562 
122 

158, 287, 307 

286 

211 

198, 300, 370, 445, 542, 622 
158*, 166, 430, 477 
223 
119%, 121, 157*, 400 
318, 341, 375, 593* 
348, 374, 435 

570, 638 


696 


Acts vill. 31 
Acts vill. 34 
Acts viii. 35 
Acts villi. 36 
Acts viii. 38 
Acts viii. 39 
Acts viii. 40 


Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 


no = 


%”) ” 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 


“ 
“ 


—~ ODIO - & 


” > ”» 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 
Acts ix. 


Acts x. 1 
Acts x. 3 
Acts x. 4 
Acts x. 5 
Acts x. 6 
Acie x7 
Acts x. 9 
Acts x. 
Acts x. 
Acts x. 
Acts x. 
Acts x. 


N. T. INDEX. 


295, 303*, 304, 335, 435, 447 
420 

71, 607* 

268, 400, 407, 604 

528 

226, 415, 499 

71, 415*, 616*, 621 


204* 
106, 107, 195, 196, 227, 294, 
396, 552, 559 

323, 366, 426, 432, 486 
610 

79, 168, 587* 

106, 486 

72, 113 

486*, 488 

182, 313, 454* 
182, 430 

371, 549 

587 

287, 430, 562 

427, 439 

268, 626 

114, 161, 270, 275, 288, 340, 
354, 457 

207, 435, 552 

268, 484 

46, 202, 301 

185, 219, 382, 420 
61, 323 

367 

79, 594* 

61, 275 

178*, 323 

61, 471 

253, 254, 376 

105, 345 

213*, 382 

323 


61, 62, 171 
230 

632 

313, 396 

121, 211, 395, 404 
145, 632% 

124, 407, 544 
146, 147, 330, 408, 430 
267, 376*, 635 
586 

171, 441, 475, 499 
152, 543, 586, 604 











Acts x. 
Acts x. 
Acts x. 
Acts x. 
Acts x. 
Acts x. 
Acts xX. 
Acts x. 
Acts x. 
Acts x. 
Acts x. 
Acts x. 
Acts x. 
Acts x. 
Acts x. 
Acts xX. 
Acts x. 
Acts x. 
Acts x: 
Acts x. 
Acts 
Acts x. 
Acts x. 
Acts x. 


Acts xi. 
Acts 
Acts xi. 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts x1. 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts xi. 
Acts xi. 
Acts ,xi. 
Acts xi. 
Acts xi. 
Acts xi. 
Acts xi. 


<P 


xi 
)- 
Ki. 


=i. 
Xl. 
as 
Xl. 
a 
xi: 
<i. 


Acts xii. 
Acts xii. 
Acts xii. 
Acts xii. 
Acts xil. 
Acts xii. 


<SeCo) CU we ho 


422 
268, 308, 371*, 408, 438, 605 
268, 298, 543 

442, 451, 477 

584 

61, 138, 199, 322%, 434 
253* 

348 

328* 

153 

435, 437, 449*, 481 

80 

121, 138*, 404, 528 
345, 592 

120, 574 

149, 164, 564%, 574* 
382, 564% 

227 

163, 439, 559, 560, 625* 
123, 140, 171 

552 

424 

326, 511 

435 


341, 400 
80, 635% 

270 

44] 

422 

408, 427 

106, 435 

152, 518 

614* 

205, 216, 412*, 602 
80, 443, 603, 628* 
371, 372*, 392* 
268 

435 

133, 609* 

335, 433 

524 

95, 323 

63, 75, 89, 334, 375*, 526 
77, 516 

606 


113, 138,540 

62, 216, 540 

268, 468*, 540, 562, 563 

540 

64, 177, 435, 539, 540 
73, 79, 429, 539, 540 


88 














N. T. INDEX. 
Acts xii. 8 314, 435, 539, 540 | Acts xiii. 43 
Acts xii. 9 442, 539, 540 | Acts xiii. 44 
Acts xii. 10 72, 126, 132, 464, 540 | Acts xiii. 45 
Acts xii. 11 73, 152, 540 | Acts xiii. 46 
Acts xii. 12 435, 539, 540 | Acts xiii. 47 
Acts xii. 13 540, 545 | Acts xiii. 48 
Acts xii. 14 371, 442, 540 | Acts xiii. 49 
Acts xii. 15 540 | Acts xiii. 50 
Acts xii. 16 345, 467*, 540, 544 | Acts xiii. 51 
Acts xii. 17 539, 540 
Acts xii. 18 298, 301, 445, 540! Acts xiv. 1 
Acts xii. 19 396, 415*, 437, 540 | Acts xiv. 3 
Acts xii. 20 371, 375, 410, 540 | Acts xiv. 4 
Acts xii. 21 142*, 146, 218, 540 | Acts xiv. 5 
Acts xii. 22 540 | Acts xiv. 8 
Acts xii. 23 540 | Acts xiv. 9 
Acts xii. 24 540 | Acts xiv. 10 
ets X11. 25 544 | Acts xiv. 11 
Acts xiv. 12 
Acts xiii. 1 400, 520 | Acts xiv. 13 
Acts xiii. 2 262*, 313, 422 | Acts xiv. 14 
Acts xiii. 3 143, 521, 584* | Acts xiv. 15 
Acts xiii. 4 539 | Acts xiv. 16 
Acts xiii. 8 188, 561, 562, 563 | Acts xiv. 17 
’ Acts xiii. 9 107* | Acts xiv. 18 
Acts xiii. 10 124, 183, 315, 345, 510*, 549 | Acts xiv. 19 
Acts xiii. 11 251, 268, 486, 585 | Acts xiv. 20 
Acts xiii. 12 232 | Acts xiv. 21 
Acts xiii. 13 109, 187, 372, 406* | Acts xiv. 22 
Acts xiii. 15 183, 218 | Acts xiv. 23 
Acts xiii. 16 183, 610 | Acts xiv. 26 
Acts xiii. 17 377 | Acts xiv. 27 
Acts xiii. 19 121 
Acts xiii. 20 218, 250 | Acts xv. 1 
Acts xiii. 21 230 | Acts xv. 2 
Acts xiii. 22 113, 131, 180, 190, 228, 527 | Acts xv. 3 
Acts xiii. 23 192* | Acts xv. 4 
Acts xiii. 24 607 | Acts xv. 5 
Acts xiii. 25 169*, 319, 543 | Acts xv. 6 
Acts xiii. 26 237*, 238*, 454* | Acts xv. 7 
Acts xiii. 27 454* | Acts xv. 8 
Acts xiii. 28 484 | Acts xv. 10 
Acts xiii. 29 454 | Acts xv. 12 
Acts xiii. 30 123 | Acts xv. 13 
Acts xiii. 31 405, 408, 543 | Acts xv. 16 
Acts xiii. 32 223, 227, 454, 626 | Acts xv. 17 
Acts xiii. 34 618* | Acts xv. 19 
Act? xiii. 35 592* | Acts xv. 20 
Acts xiii. 36 432, 540 | Acts xv. 21 
Acts xiii. 37 158, 543 | Acts xv. 22 
Acts xiii. 39 57, 422 | Acts xv. 23 
Acts xiii. 40 175, 480, 504 | Acts xv. 24 
Acts xiii. 41 293, 508 | Acts xv. 25 


697 


128, 542 

435 

355* 

151 

228, 259, 528 
69, 262", 543 
378% 

126 

342 


301, 323, 401*, 559 
379 

104, 391 

319 

73, 215 

324, 543 

82, 108, 464, 528, 553* 
431 

66, 150*, 539 

90, 372, 630 

257, 344 

209, 543, 552, 628 
219 

78, 156, 201, 444* 
325 

321, 344, 544 

391 

223, 420, 539 

430 

73 

472 

376, 542 


215, 293 
373 

431 

127, 259, 420, 435, 539 
307, 370 

128 

226*, 606 

440 

152, 318* 488, 542 
177, 379, 515 

183, 329 

469* 

141, 310 

48] 

127, 326%, 427, 520 
401* 

255%, 567, 627 

128, 133, 316, 588, 606 
322, 344, 545 

320, 545, 627 


698 


Acts xv. 
Acts xv. 
Acts xv. 
Acts xv. 
Acts xv. 
* Acts xv. 
Acts xv. 
Acts xv. 


Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 


Xvi. 
XVi. 
Xvi. 
Xvi. 
Xvi. 
Xvi. 
Xvi. 
Xvi. 
Xvi. 


Acts xvii. 
Acts xvii. 
Acts xvii. 
Acts xvii. 
Acts xvii. 
Acts xvii. 
Acts xvii. 
Acts xvii. 
Acts xvii. 
Acts xvii. 
Acts xvii. 
Acts xvii. 
Acts xvii. 


39 
40 


N. T. INDEX. 


545 , Acts 
342* | Acts 
315, 345, 427, 520 | Acts 


232 
142*, 298, 626, 627* 
70 

372*, 481, 482 

435 


260, 420 
607, 626 

268, 296, 431 

215 

333, 400, 476*, 494 
112, 219*, 313, 380 
262* 

590 

344 

403 

433, 543 

292, 314, 545 
257%*, 333, 543 
553 

202 

332, 493 

269*, 332 

539 

69, 111, 542, 622 
401* 

63, 72, 176, 549 


70, 334*, 544 
222, 226, 501 
| Acts 
| Acts 


433 
76, 518 

197, 372* 

346, 435, 539, 627 
73, 446*, 591 

335 

396 


209, 211, 215, 217, 372*, 584% 
330, 580 

262 

61, 73, 219, 484 

420 

112, 129, 543 

299*, 377 

523 

82, 112 

129, 617* 

112, 420 

112, 632 

71, 105, 171, 303*, 593* 


| Acts 





XVii. 
XVii. 
XVii. 
Acts xvii. 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts xvii. 
Acts 
” 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 


XVii. 
Xvil. 


XVil. 


Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 


Acts 
Acts 


Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 


Acts 
Acts 
Acts x 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 
Acts 


xix. 
X1x. 
xix: 
xix. 
Xix. 
<i: 
RIS; 
ab. @ 
xix, 


XViii. 
XViil. 
XVlil. 
XViil. 
XViii. 
XVlil. 
XVili. 
XVili. 
XViil. 
XVili. 
XViii. 
XViil. 
XVlii. 
XViii. 
Xviii. 
XViil. 
Xviii. 
XViii. 
XViil. 
XVili. 
XViil. 
XVIil. 
XVlii. 
XVlii. 
XViii. 
XViil. 


wowwwnwmor. NNN NYNHND DW 
woe Opry ONAQ ah NY KS CO 


woOmAN nor WNW = 


ppd 
= So 


booed. to WW NW NM SMe eS Ee 
NO ornroaoaoanar &W bd 


28 


169 
71, 244%, 549 

244*, 523, 610 

120, 545 

200, 637 

407, 539 

| 76, 299*, 485 
104, 154, 389, 400%, 454* 
540, 640* 

441, 491* 

433 

163, 389*, 410, 424, 463 
82, 104, 123, 528 


112 
120, 182, 215, 329, 343, 543 
72, 230, 395 

539, 552 

129, 341 

176*, 587 

2 

113 

610 

593* 

249 

206 

404 

72, 183, 304, 401 
154 

113, 202, 205 
253° 

150, 209 

2492 

415, 603 

544 

62, 120, 341 

268 

243, 539, 614* 
259 

209 


62, 219, 323, 543 
298, 451, 493, 509 
397*, 439, 539 
530, 550, 576 

71, 539 

408, 552 

140, 539,"606 
428, 435 

226, 408 

60, 170 

132, 429, 431 
140 


Acts xix. 19 
Acts xix. 22 
Acts xix. 24 
Acts xix. 25 
Acts xix. 26 
Acts xix. 27 
Acts xix. 28 
Acts xix. 29 
Acts xix. 31 
Acts xix. 32 
Acts xix. 33 
Acts xix. 34 
Acts xix. 35 
Acts xix. 37 
Acts xix. 38 
Acts xix. 39 
Acts xix. 40 


Acts xx. 1 
Acts xx. 2 
Acts xx. 3 
Acts xx. 4 
Acts xx. 7 
Acts xx. 9 
Acts xx. 10 
Acts xx. 11 
Acts xx. 12 
a xx. 13 

mts xx, 14 
Acts xx. 15 
Acts xx. 16 
Acts xx. 17 
Acts xx. 18 
Acts xx. 20 
Acts xx. 21 
Acts xx. 22 
Acts xx. 23 
Acts xx. 24 
Acts xx. 25 
Acts xx. 26 
Acts xx. 27 
Acts xx. 28 
Acts xx. 29 
Acts xx. 30 
Acts xx. 31 
Acts xx. 32 
Acts xx. 33 
Acts xx. 34 
Acts xx. 35 
Acts xx. 38 


Acts xxi. 1 
Acts xxi. 2 


234, 300, 447, 481, 523, 592 


N, T. INDEX. 


527, 592 

251%, 415* 

253, 257, 341 
367, 406, 543 
110, 321, 498* 
184*, 196, 228, 550 
584 

201, 353* 

61, 171, 335, 481 
242 

209, 330, 332 
567*, 584 


222 
53, 590* 

292 
203, 448 





543, 609% 
145 


112, 211, 324, 428, 539, 567 


103, 138*, 519, 520, 593 
248, 435, 539 

341, 371, 375*, 431, 545 
430 

541 

276 

262% 

415* 

112, 590 

211, 294, 319, 477 

112 

298%, 422, 430, 549 
325, 545 

66, 559 

215, 483 

638, 340, 508 

186, 318 
384 

197 
325, 482, 604 
228, 527 

205, 396, 484* 
621 

552 

391* 

204 


62, 323, 427, 590 | 





342%, 344 | 


Acts xxi. 3 
Acts xxi. 4 
Acts xxi. 5 
Acts xxi. 6 
Acts xxi. 8 
Acts xxi. 9 
Acts xxi. 1 
Acts xxi. 12 
Acts xxi. 18 


699 


112, 260*, 270, 349%, 478 
322*, 481, 543 

122, 328, 552 

430 

134*, 592* 

523 

155, 552 

825, 439 

832, 609* 


Acts xxi. 16 165, 203, 214*, 341, 513, 589* 


Acts xxi. 17 
Acts xxi. 18 
Acts xxi. 19 
Acts xxi. 21 
Acts xxi. 23 
Acts xxi. 24 
Acts xxi. 25 
Acts xxi. 26 
Acts xxi. 28 
Acts xxi. 29 
Acts xxi. 30 
Acts xxi. 31 
Acts xxi. 32 
Acts xxi. 33 
Acts xxi. 34 
Acts xxi. 35 
Acts xxi. 36 
Acts xxi. 37 
Acts xxi. 38 
Acts xxi. 39 


Acts xxii. 2 
Acts xxii. 3 
Acts xxil. 4 
Acts xxii. 5 
Acts xxii. 6 
Acts xxii. 7 
Acts xxii. 9 
Acts xxii. 10 
Acts xxii. 11 
Acts xxii. 12 
Acts xxii. 18 
Acts xxii. 15 
Acts xxii. 17 
Acts xxii. 18 
Acts xxii. 19 
Acts xxii. 21 
Acts xxii. 22 
Acts xxii. 24 
Acts xxii. 25 
Acts xxii. 26 
Acts xxii. 28 
Acts xxii. 29 


207, 465 

435 

158 

219, 322* 

211 

75, 255 

128, 223, 520 

218, 255, 275, 296 
114, 272, 344*, 439, 578* 
321 

86 

62, 215* 

61 

168, 299*, 308 
484 

323 

516, 526 

408, 509 

106, 114, 134, 511* 
313, 528, 545 


432 
187, 189%, 340*, 559* 
543 

141, 472 

121, 220, 323, 406*, 432 
73 

540, 550 

163 

268, 371*, 481 

528 

218, 813, 428 

110, 158 

220*, 323%, 577 

137% 

213*, 401 

396 

282% 

85, 301 

61, 208, 509 

a 61 
439 

443 


700 


Acts xxii. 


Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiil. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxili. 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 


Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiy. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 


30 


COonrnrw kf © bh = 


— 
—_ © 


doo wo bh Ww WY HN KF RK SB eK Se 
G& ov Goch & CG cS =F cr = Gs «Cb 


Acts xxv. 1 


N. T. INDEX. 


109, 261, 365*, 398* 


111, 262 
81, 332, 340 

222, 316, 502, 641* 
195, 203, 437, 631 
128 

481, 493*, 540 
519, 599, 600* 
504, 545, 600 

621 

297 

239, 256, 596 

128, 150, 297, 466*, 543 
287, 313, 324, 329 
202 

301 
193*, 297, 371, 596 
545, 579 

170*, 313*, 579 
138, 579, 621 

588 

134*, 544 

203 

278, 315, 375, 568* 
364, 366, 411, 582 
308, 332, 558 


534 

614* 

200, 637 

561 

133, 208, 351, 567* 
351*, 543, 567* 
Sty 

76, 865, 543 

614 

346, 367 

239, 318, 341, 592, 596 
441, 491 

203, 491 

161, 219 

334 

213, 842, 380*, 453 
282, 294* 

7Je 85, 375 

123, 164, 203 

560% 

61 

334, 342, 463 

n 209 


370*, 540, 544 








Acts xxv. 
Acts Xxv. 
Acts xxy. 
Acts xxv. 
Acts xxv. 
Acts xxv. 
Acts Xxv. 
Acts xxv. 
Acts xxv. 
Acts xxv. 
Acts XXv. 
Acts xxv. 
Acts xxv. 
Acts Xxv. 
Acts xxv. 
Acts xxv. 
Acts XxXVv. 
Acts xxv. 
Acts xxv. 
Acts XXv. 
Acts xxv. 
Acts Xxv. 
Acts xxv. 


Acts xxvi. 
Acts Xxvi. 
Acts xxvi. 
Acts xxvi. 
Acts xxvi. 
Acts xxvi 


Acts. xxvi. 
Acts xxvi 
Acts xxvi. 
Acts XXvi. 
Acts xxvi. 
Acts Xxvi. 
Acts xxvi. 
Acts xxvi. 
Acts Xxvi. 
bP 3”? 
Acts xxvi. 
Acts xxvi. 
Acts XxXvi. 
Acts xxvi. 
Acts xxvi. 
” ” 
Acts xxvi. 
Acts xxvi. 


Acts Xxvi. 
Acts xxvi. 


2 540 
3 338, 341 
4 540 
5 77, 540, 558 
6 239, 344, 540, 544, 596 
7 330, 373, 432, 525*, 540 
9 375 
10 227, 242* 
1l 203, 253, 267*, 456, 540 
12 262*, 538 
13 138, 342, 518, 544 
14 401, 527 
15 128, 373, 543 
16 122, 297, 300 
17 256, 475 
18 168, 373* 
20 299, 397, 543 
21 143, 332 
22 82, 283*, 558, 587 
23 60, 402, 420, 560 
24 499, 515, 516, 549 
26 288* 
27 89, 319 
1 229, 268 
2 321 
3 154, 231*, 400, 559, 572 
4 124, 133, 136, 576" 
5 401, 527, 626 
6 394 
Acts xxvi. 7 100,331,397, 543,549, 552,593 
8 395*, 542 
9 138 
10 107, 545 
11 268, 545 
12 133, 386, 545 
13 403, 545 
14 396, 545 
15 85 
16 142, 158, 161, 166, 262* 
3 489, 442, 548, 545 
17 141, 429, 545, 550 
18 139*, 325, 421, 545 
19 68, 549 
20 352, 420, 435, 627 
22 183, 140, 158, 455*, 485, 
A 550, 559 
23 97*, 123 
24 108, 132, 514, 549, 550 
25 558 
26 500* 
27 549 


Acts xxvi. 
Acts xxvi. 


29 


209, 235, 303*, 420*, 440 


Acts xxvi. 30 
Acts xxvi. 31 
Acts xxvi. 32 


Acts xxvii. 1 
Acts xxvii. 2 
Acts xxvii. 3 
Acts xxvii. 5 
Acts xxvii. 6 
Acts xxvii. 7 
Acts xxvii. 8 
Acts xxvii. 9 
Acts xxvii. 10 
Acts xxvii. 12 
Acts xxvii. 18 
Acts xxvii. 14 
Acts xxvii. 17 
Acts xxvii. 18 
Acts xxvii. 20 
Acts xxvii. 21 
Acts xxvii. 22 
Acts xxvii. 23 
Acts xxvii. 25 
Acts xxvii. 27 
Acts xxvii. 28 
Acts xxvii. 29 
Acts xxvii. 30 
Acts xxvii. 31 
Acts xxvii. 33 
Acts xxvii. 34 
Acts xxvii. 35 
Acts xxvii. 36 
Acts xxvii. 37 
Acts xxvii. 38 
Acts xxvii. 39 
Acts xxvii. 40 
Acts xxvii. 42 
Acts xxvii. 43 
Acts xxvii. 44 


Acts xxviii. 2 
Acts xxviii. 3 
Acts xxviii. 4 
Acts xxviii. 6 
Acts xxviii. 8 
Acts xxviii. 9 
Acts xxviii. 1 
Acts xxviii. 13 
Acts xxviii. 14 
Acts xxviii. 16 
Acts xxviii. 17 
Acts xxviii. 18 
Acts xxviii. 20 


N. T. INDEX. 


126, 128, 519 
267% 
70, 305, 334, 477 


. 62, 78, 182, 261, 326*, 540 


224*, 400, 430 

200, 321%, 539 

133, 187, 431* 

525 

484 

471, 539 

63, 334, 543 

334, 339*, 573 

242, 299, 400, 406, 545 
243*, 334%, 594* 
147, 251*, 381*, 558 
209, 210, 504 

256 

120, 484, 488, 610 
87, 183, 282, 443, 481 
223, 508, 633% 

218, 543 

183 

123 

252* 

71, 366, 504, 539 

62 

61 

70, 198, 335, 348 
364, 374* 

71, 614* 

198 


64, 591, 594 
336, 502*, 545 
196, 251*, 5 

105, 323, 528 


257*, 368*, 372 
366 

268, 396* 

323 

456 

216 

465, 528 

392 

62, 73 

127, 129, 323, 485 
70, 482 
229 


Acts xxviii. 21 
Acts xxviii. 23 

>? ”? ” 
Acts xxviii. 24 
Acts xxviii. 25 
Acts xxviii. 26 
Acts xxviii. 27 
Acts Xxvill. 28 


Rom. i. 1 
Rom. i. 
Rom. 
Rom. 


y. 
3 
4 
Rom. i. 5 


bate plo pede 
4 . . 


bD FF. 23 
Rom. i. 


i 
Rom. i 

Rom. i. 8 
Rom. i. 

Rom. i. 

Rom. i. 11 
Rom. i. 12 
Rom. i. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. i. 17 
Rom. i. 19 


701 


85, 489 
121, 372, 420, 422, 439, 
543, 559 

104 

61, 602 

85 

494, 503 

82 


125, 545, 565 
543, 545, 565 
186, 545, 565 


123, 188*, 237, 367*, 545, 565 
120, 186, 379*, 383, 384, 402, 


517, 543, 545, 565, 631 


195*, 517, 543, 545, 565 
i. 7 124,139, 219, 234, 545,565, 585 


378, 575, 576* 

386, 410 

300, 376* 

198* 

155, 577 

438, 440, 561, 562, 565 
209, 439 

223, 230, 235 

221, 247%, 576* 


59, 136*, 186*, 396, 419, 513 


235* 


Rom. i. 20 123,125, 128, 216, 235*, 439, 638 


Rom. i. 21 
Rom. i. 22 
Rom. i. 23 
Rom. i. 24 
Rom. i. 25 
Rom. i. 26 
Rom. i, 27 
Rom. i. 28 
Rom. i. 29 
Rom. i. 30 
Rom. i. 31 
Rom. i. 32 


Rom. ii. 1 
Rom. ii. 2 
Rom. ii. 3¢ 
Rom. ii. 4 
Rom. ii. 5 
Rom. ii. 7 
Rom. ii. 
Rom. ii. 
Rom. ii. 10 
Rom. ii. 11 
Rom. ii. 12 


71, 582, 624* 
321, 627 
206, 388%, 524 


213, 263*, 326*, 387, 417* 


404* 
237, 404, 571* 

417, 571* 

480, 485, 638 

120, 217, 520, 553, 637 
53 

553, 637 

123, 206, 344* 


135, 183, 387*, 533 
401 

152, 161*, 183, 509 
190, 235, 353 

125, 188%, 402, 417* 
187*, 519, 639 

424, 578 
156%, 552, 576*, 578 
578 

395, 447 

128, 878, 386*, 447 


Rom. i 
Rom. i 
Rom. i 
Rom. 
Rom. i 


Rom. iii 


Rom. i 


Rom. iii 


Rom. 


2? 


Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 


Rom. iii 


Rom. 
Rom. iii. 
Rom. i 
Rom. i 


Rom. iii 


Rom. i 
Rom. 


9) 


Rom. 


Rom. iii 
Rom. iii 
Rom. iii 


Rom. 
Rom. i 


Rom. i 
Rom. i 
Rom. i 
Rom. i 
Rom. i 
Rom. 
Rom. i 


on om &O be 


N. T. INDEX. 


186*, 447, 565* 

139*, 141, 211, 309, 447, 483 
556*, 565*, 620 

440, 565*, 580*, 615 
76, 122, 233, 569%, 610 
263, 569%, 594 

321, 520, 569% 

569% 
322*, 481, 508, 569% 
481 

123, 233, 569 

293 

145, 228, 259, 293 
134*, 343*, 380*, 454" 
421, 454*, 488, 584* 
116 


174, 584 

229, 260*, 454*, 514, 575, 576 
585, 638 

254, 310, 442 

122, 402, 511, 563 

279, 480, 500, 594 

580 

287, 554, 555, 580, 628% 

59, 60, 120, 258%, 264*, 407, 
548, 552, 554*, 585 

173 

81, 109 

77, 407* 

185 

110, 460 

171, 186, 286% 

186*, 271 

186, 418%, 443 

201, 274 

216, 217*, 352% 

96*, 137, 152, 228, 254, 378, 
399, 412, 527 

368, 412 

116, 582 

120, 456, 595* 

192 

116, 186, 280*, 362%, 411*, 448 
78, 87, 123, 609 


113, 334, 508 
306% 

453%, 523% 
34, 108, 402* 
186, 483 

81 

506, 585 


Rom. iv. 9 129, 321, 409, 420, 587*, 595* 


Rom. 
Rom. 


Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 


Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 


iv. 10 386, 420 
iv. 11 133, 190, 380, 531 
iv. 12 209, 211, 219, 534, 555*, 577 
iv. 18 123, 186%, 320, 441, 447, 
Tone 453*, 586 
iv. 14 59, 109, 123, 278, 292, 368, 
oes 447, 585, 595 
iv. 15 123, 447, 456 
iv. 16 69, 8368, 585, 598* 
iv. 17 164, 165* 
iv. 18 329, 404, 411, 465 
iv. 19 486* 
iv. 20 215*, 216, 261, 342, 344, 397 
iv. 21 262 
iv. 22 523* 
iv. 24 123, 628 
iv. 25 611, 639 
¥el 186*, 378, 406 
Vv. 2 136*, 233, 271, 379 
y.3 233, 583* 
.v.5 107, 185, 378, 413, 414, 417 
v.6 124, 382, 383, 447, 453*, 553 
77 117*, 279*, 447, 453*, 613 
.y. 8 137, 383, 553 
.v.9 197, 594 
WL O 262 
vy. ll 351*, 583* 
.v. 12 144, 158*, 394, 396, 562, 569* 
i‘ s 599, 609 
.v. 18 85, 123, 475, 570 
v. 14 82,206,394*, 409,442, 542,570 
.v. 15 110, 442, 541, 570* 
.v.16 60, 82, 340*, 368, 396, 584* 
vi 17 353 
v.18 188,440, 445, 558, 570*, 587% 
y. 19 110, 421, 638 
vy. 20 123, 459 
v. 21 418*, 440 
vi. 1 279, 285 
vi.2 86, 168, 210, 279*, 386, 428 
vi. 3 509 
vi. 4 136, 137, 236, 288, 444 
vi. 5 292, 442*, 451 
vi. 6 161, 188*, 326, 612*, 615 
vi. 8 86, 391 
vi. 9 538 
vi. 10 168*, 210, 227, 422, 428 
vi. 11 210*, 228, 389* 
vi. 12 488, 502, 524* 
vi. 13 314, 488 


Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 


Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 


Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 


N. T. INDEX. 


vi. 14 120, 279*, 316* 
vi. 15 82, 279, 420, 588 
vi. 16 158, 266, 440, 612* 
vi.17 164%, 261*, 368, 485, 629* 
vi. 18 197 
vi. 19 128, 397 
vi. 20 210* 
vi. 21 60, 141, 158%, 221 
vi. 22 197, 417% 
vi. 23 176, 389 
vii. 1 123, 446, 562, 565, 589 
vii. 2 188*, 209, 271*, 293, 446, 621 
vii. 3 280, 324, 343, 445, 558 
vii. 4 118, 210*, 301, 381* 
vii. 5 133, 189, 258, 329 
vii. 6 159, 230 
vii. 7 189, 805*, 316, 448*, 477 
vii. 8 575 
vii. 9 87 
vii. 10 133, 160, 189, 616*, 621 
vii. 11 189 
vii. 12 520, 575* 
vii. 13 123, 189, 211, 346, 351, 
bee. 513, 575 
vii. 14 98, 407* 
vii. 15 160 
vii. 17 152, 618* 
vii. 18 320, 530 
vii. 19 160, 528 
vii. 20 6t8 
vii. 21 59, 149, 534, 557*, 571% 
vii. 22 401, 433 
vii. 24 37, 189%, 197, 237*, 286%, 634 
vii. 25 62, 221, 378, 601* 
viii. 1 135*, 390, 445 
viii. 2 126, 137*, 197 
viii. 3 231*, 235*,387*, 534, 574*, 624 
viii. 4 57, 58, 134, 420, 477, 482, 582 
viii. 5 402, 447, 453 
viii. 6 453° 
viii. 7 397, 594 
viii. 8 452* 
vill. 9 57, 122, 195, 448, 477, 478 
viii. 10 120 
viii. 11 292, 363, 399 
viii. 12 209, 326*, 445, 556* 
viii. 14 122 
vili. 15 887, 397, 521, 609 
viii. 16 122 
viii. 17 441, 460, 585 
viii. 18 213*, 321, 334, 405*, 550 


¢ 








Rom. i 
Rom. i 
Rom. i 
Rom. i 


Rom. 
Rom. 


Rom. i 
Rom. i 
Ronit. ix. 


Rom. 


”» 


Rom. i 


Rom. 


Rom. i 


Rom. 
Rom. 


Rom. i 


Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 


Rom. i 
Rom. i 
Rom. i 


Rom. 
Rom. 


Rom. i 
Rom. i 
Rom. i 


Rom. 
Rom. 


» Vili. 


Seni 


. Vili. 
. Vill. 


. Viil. 


. Viii. 
. Vili. 
. Vill. 


. Vill. 
. Vidi. 


wo bw bo 
omnes 


“ 
“ 


bo 
nS 


Vili. 


mw np bw 
aor Go oH 


viii. 


oo bo 
oo 


Vii. 


co 
—_ 


viii. 


co 
bo 


viii. 


ies) 
wo 


»”» 


“ 
- 


qe 
oF 


Viii. 


eo ww 
wooo 


a rTnrnwnr woh = 


ix. 
ix. 


ix. 
ix. 


ix, 32 


703 


58, 399%, 485 
197, 531, 621 

124, 610 

117*, 150, 187*, 528, 531* 
583, 637 

216, 284*, 340, 437* 

292, 379, 423, 543 

97, 109, 112, 168, 299%, 433 
122, 400%, 584 

120, 534 

158, 195, 228, 561 

277*, 278 

382, 383, 584 

90, 154, 379, 560 

60, 180, 203, 234, 350, 382, 
431, 508, 513 

382 

185, 197, 440 

188, 562 

488 

133 


248*, 390*, 537, 540, 562 
639 


32, 71, 135, 283*, 370, 382, 621 


177*, 520 
60, 230, 375, 401, 551*, 586* 
160, 171, 271, 339*, 597* 
B75 

* 110, 160, 228, 514 
583% 

193*, 425, 441,.459, 484, 

+ 561, 562, 589% 

245, 583 

113, 549 

395, 500 

66, 88, 221 

85, 445, 598* 

82, 143, 254 

85, 

274*, 280%, 

183, 465*, 511, 549, 
105, 112, 191, 366, 397, 
108, 235, 570%, 599 

409, 570% 

528, 627 

385, 387, 476, 485 

615 

383 

304, 602, 605 

139, 186, 443 

90, 636* 

582, 617* 


704 


Rom. 


Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 


Rom. 


Rom. 


Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 


be 


on 


v7 
“ 


a ae se a 8 


o 
oo 


Io orf Cc ND = 


@ 


N. T. INDEX. 


233, 435 


383, 412, 537, 575*, 586 
185*, 212, 403*, 447 
186*, 447, 575* 

123, 447 

133, 447 

186 

318 

195 

120, 396, 611, 639 

397 

82, 158*, 166, 279*, 285*, 
480, 632 

118, 477, 606 

136, 171 

123, 367, 411, 445, 558 
147*, 511*, 559 

114*, 392, 393, 442, 464%, 
476*, 511, 528 

219, 469% 

405 


448, 511 

382, 385 

179* 
283*, 480, 582, 618* 
200 

94 

. 63 
458, 459, 586 

639 

192*, 408*, 409, 551, 575* 
521 

582*, 584, 585 

200, 292, 391*, 637, 638 


76, 292, 431*, 470, 501, 619* 


118, 280* 

216*, 313% 

193*, 401, 425, 448, 474%, 
478, 504*, 598% 

578 

620* 

154, 429, 430 

211, 287, 423*, 477 

428 

193*, 308 

401 

216, 440 

60, 153*, 459*, 550 
178, 397*, 459, 610, 622 
191*, 519, 639 

436 








Rom. 


Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 


a, 


al: 
Xil. 
xii. 
ail. 
i; 
Xii. 
<i: 
Xil. 
Sil: 
Xii. 
Xli. 
Xli. 
nah 
Xi. 
il. 
Xli. 
xi. 
xi: 
xii. 


Rate 


mm OON NH oO fF oO WO 


— = © 
= Oo anrnrwtr WD = 


CANA MA De = 


— pt 
f=, 


1 


“ 
“ 


1 


~~ 


— 
m Co 


et et pet 
Non oO PB w 


108, 379%, 418* 


58, 231, 332, 381*, 533* 
519, 578 


400, 404, 433, 481, 550, 638 


548 

110, 249 

352, 440, 545, 578*, 582 
545, 578* 

545 

537, 585, 586* 

215 

476 

210, 217%*, 433 

537 

376 

219, 395*, 397, 537, 580 
230, 585 

594 

77, 298, 313*, 444, 580 
537 


122, 156*, 363, 370, 371, 
537, 582* 

212, 274, 301, 429 

313, 368, 481, 524 

192, 293 

319, 385 

317, 631* 

590* 


123, 209, 273, 323, 499, 501* 


87, 109, 151, 316, 502, 565 
195, 239, 319, 366*, 551,. 
565*, 573*, 585 

219, 477 

396, 397, 417, 549, 556* 


174, 397, 476 

105, 322* 

482 

152, 154, 210 

154, 404% 

212 

44] 

295% 

161, 206, 276, 457, 552* 
440 

209, 449, 457* 
323, 502, 529, 619 
152, 160, 390*, 609 
383, 402, 619 

155, 502 

139, 390%, 552 


N. T. INDEX. 


Rom. xiv. 19 133 
Rom. xiv. 20 880, 443 
Rom. xiv. 21 65, 158, 198, 320, 475*, 488 

» Ce 583*, 584 
Rom. xiv. 22 159, 386, 483, 508, 585 
Rom. xiv. 23 262, 273*, 293, 582 
Rom. xy. 1 476 
Rom. xv. 2 397 
Rom. xv.3 74, 118, 222, 448, 574*, 599 
Rom. xv. 4 153*, 189* 
Rom. xv. 5 78, 185, 286, 320, 401 
Rom. xv. 6 388 
Rom. xv. 7 118, 122 
Rom. xv. 8 122, 153, 185, 334, 383 
Rom. xv. 9 -322*, 332*, 383 
Rom. xv. 11 314 
Rom. xy. 12 206, 233 
Rom. xy. 13 185, 201, 410 
Rom. xy. 14 201, 373 
Rom. xv. 15 243*,278,379,399*,455,617* 
Rom. xy. 16 223*, 455, 531 
Rom. xv. 17 230, 390, 455* 
Rom. xy. 18 158, 166, 216, 217, 279, 

_ oe 498, 552 
Rom. xy. 19 65, 118, 334 
Rom. xy. 20 556*, 615 
Rom. xy. 21 82, 575, 599 
Rom. xy. 22 268, 325, 604 
Rom. xv. 23 324, 326, 483 
Rom. xy. 24 198, 201, 308*, 321, 331, 472* 
Rom. xy. 25 265, 342* 
Rom. xy. 26 138, 256 
Rom. xy. 27 200, 209, 292, 448 
Rom. xy. 28 343, 378*, 385, 621 
Rom. xv. 29 384 
Rom. xv. 30 332, 381 
Rom. xy. 31 133, 234 
Rom. xv. 82 122 
Rom. xv. 33 585 
Rom. xvi. 1 133, 184, 343 
Rom. xvi. 2 159, 234, 307, 390, 448, 638 
Rom. xvi. 3 136 
Rom. xvi. 4 562, 566* 
Rom. xvi. 5 185, 397 
Rom. xvi. 7 143, 372 
Rom. xvi. 8 103, 112, 136 
Rom. xvi. 10 136, 190* 
Rom. xvi. 11 66, 190*, 390 
Rom. xvi. 12 390* 
Rom. xvi. 13 155 
Rom. xvi. 14 103 


89 


Rom. xvi. lo 
Rom. xvi. 16 
Rom. xvi. 17 
Rom. xvi 18 
Rom. xvi. 19 
Rom. xvi. 20 
Rom. xvi. 22 
Rom. xvi. 25 
Rom. xvi. 26 
Rom. xvi. 27 
E Gor. iS 
BCorii4s 
1 Cor. i. 4 
VereiG 
1 Cor. i. 6 
1 Cor: 1.:7 
1 Cor. i. 8 

A 3? «37 
1 Cor. i. 9 
1 Cor. i. 10 
I Cor? # 11 
I Cor. 1.12 
T Gor. i718 
I Cor i: 15 
1 Cor. i. 16 
IP Gor. 1. 17 
1 Cor. i. 18 
1 Cor. i. 19 
1 Cor. ii 20 
1 Cor. i. 21 
1 Cor. 1.22 
I’ Cor iv 29 
i Cor:-1./25 
1 Cor. i} 26 
¥ Cori i27 
YP Cor: i.:28 
1 Cor. i, 29 
1 Cor. i. 80 
1 Cor. i, 31 
1 Cor. ii. 1 
Gor: ik'S 
1 Cor. ii. 4 
1 Cor. ii. 5 
1 Cor: ii. 6 
1 Cor. ii. 7 
1 Cor. ii. 8 
1 Cor. 11.°9 
1 Cor. ii. 10 
Cor? if? 31 
LT Corsi i2 
1 Cor. ii. 13 


705 


103 
118 


126, 251, 314, 332, 404, 429 


447 

283, 397 

280*, 621 

390, 521 

218, 401, 545, 567* 
186, 396, 435, 565* 
108, 168, 378, 545, 567* 


263*, 234, 530 

122, 124 

393, 412 

201, 566 

118, 185*, 566 

118, 134, 201, 480, 499 
144, 157*, 417*, 488, 528, 
566%, 624 

233, 378, 585 

62, 336, 381*, 611 

65, 190* 

60, 153, 161, 195, 625* 
60, 118, 508 

301 

60, 298, 443 

318, 496 

131, 185, 211, 217 

83 

75, 609 

144, 381* 

612* 

135, 441, 541, 612, 638 
235, 239, 245* 

317, 585 

178, 189%, 609 

129, 178, 484* 

171, 477 

122, 371*, 439, 542, 550 
599% 


185, 342, 402, 607 
152, 420 

96, 126, 611 

420, 586 

218*, 385, 443 
137, 167, 193, 387 
304, 562 

168, 317, 575, 620, 633* 
599* 

133, 550, 551 
193*, 259 

194*, 637 


706 


1 Cor. ii. 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


ii. 
ii. 


1 Cor. iii 
l Cor. iti 
1 Cor. iii 
1 Cor. iii 
1 Cor. iii 
1 Cor. iii 
1. Cor. iil 
1 Cor. iii 


1 Cor. iii. 
1 Cor. iii 


LCorf iii 


1 Cor. iii. 


1 Cor. ili 


1 Cor. iii. 
1 Cor. iii 
bk Corsi. 
1 Cor. i 
Mor. 3 
1 Cor. iii 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. iii. 


1 Cor. i 
1. Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
laCor: iv; 
1 Cor. i 


fd 


1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. iv. 
le@orsi 
LeCor,i 
1 Cor. i 
1+ Cor. i 
leCor, i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. iv. 
1 Cor. iy. 
1 Cor. i 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1,Cor. 
1 Cor. 


me Bes es ms 


14 


16 


OO WH OP wT DY Be 


— 
pat 


— 
oO ox © bo 


arr wh 


N. T. INDEX. 


116 
116, 559 
125, 300 


70, 98, 217, 585, 594 


70, 226, 493*, 520, 594, 622* 


99, 447 
62, 308, 447 


378, 437, 442, 447, 455*, 550 


247 

583 

128 

192 

298, 300* 

404% 

430, 520 

265, 388, 457* 

53 

87, 150, 378, 443 
122 

166, 539, 638 
253, 287, 410, 613 
352*, 395 

626 

195, 233, 301, 575 


527 
168, 337, 386, 580, 616 


184*, 211, 337, 420, 460, 635 


271, 350, 387*, 447*, 630 
108, 124, 371 


62, 173, 289*, 323, 382*, 386* 


516, 580, 590* 
76, 443, 452* 484 
302*, 538, 609 


127%, 228, 446, 453, 517, 528 


411 
92 
530 


125, 278, 342, 485, 573, 578% 


90, 442 

545 

133, 166, 167*, 226 
278, 484, 617 

586 

285, 384, 420 


384, 480, 550*, 615 

315, 429, 436*, 453*, 508 
160, 453*, 575 

391, 562 

160, 459* 

524 





1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
i Cor. 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
+) 
Litor, 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Gor, 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor, 


ieiotor: 


In@or; 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. vii. 


1 Cor. 
l Cor. 
” 

1 Cor. 
leCor. 
1 Cor. 
1leCori 


1 Cor. vii. 


1 Cor. 
1eCor; 
1-Cor, 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1eor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


Ng 
Af 
v 
V. 
v 
v; 
Vi 


7 
8 
9 


10 


aD | 
. 12 


284, 448, 524, 528, 534, 538 


120, 301, 384, 477, 531 
106, 278, 481, 555* 
128, 283, 445 

278*, 481, 572* 

211, 586 

313, 438, 538 


254*, 375, 613 

234, 292, 385, 638 
124% 

60, 160, 317, 550, 561 
80, 173, 175*, 300, 398 
214, 442, 451 

132, 214, 254% 

488, 500* 

142, 162*, 255, 442, 513, 
529, 609, 625 

369 

211, 586 

378 

118, 192, 608 

183, 522* 

223, 233, 310, 538 
122, 163, 174, 195* 
206, 313, 386, 595* 


57, 159, 166, 320 

154*, 176, 398* 

106, 571, 582 

495, 538 

303*, 424* 

283*, 368, 440, 452*, 463* 
528, 603 

320 

77, 84, 292, 477 

197, 321, 496* 

262, 293, 565 

152, 496*, 502, 520 
150, 502, 577 

132, 271, 283*, 389%, 445 
311*, 386, 417, 518, 538 
85, 299 

169* 

583* 

422 

481, 582*, 595 

124 

538, 539 

314, 395* 

124, 455 


106, 320*, 455*, 523, 568, 602 


197, 209 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
bs Gor. 
1 Cor. 
41 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
I Cor. 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


9 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


Vii. 
vii. 29 
vii. 31 
Vili. 32 
vii. 33 
vli. 34 
vii. 35 
vii. 36 
vil. 37 
vil. 38 
vii. 39 
vii. 40 


viii. 1 
viii, 2 
viii. 3 
Vili. 4 
viii. 5 
viii. 6 
viii. 7 
»”» > 

viii. 8 

viii. 9 

viii. 10 
viii. 11 
viii. 12 
viii. 13 


- 1 Cor. ix. 


1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1-Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1-Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 


”? 


1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 


”? 


1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
T. Cor. 


— 
? ‘al 
omanroauw»rtk wn & 


ix. 20 


1-Cor; ix. 


tL. Corsi 
1 Cor. i 


N. T. INDEX. 


28 84, 205, 211, 277, 284*, 293* 


106, 287, 459*, 460, 484 
210, 251, 340 

299 

109, 299 

215, 299, 519 

211, 329, 354, 430, 464 


77, 242, 296, 321, 332, 631* 


161, 193*, 483, 573* 
242, 248, 439%, 576* 


84, 158, 159, 319, 390, 584 


613 


84, 562, 565% 
499, 539, 565*, 613 
263*, 565% 

128, 444, 558, 565 
116, 120 

149, 419*, 579 

185*, 191, 198, 216, 450, 
466, 550 

279 

211, 452*, 504 

134, 263*, 293 

394, 446 

155 

65, 506 


510 
211, 212, 444, 479* 
211 

319, 511 


228, 257*, 319, 511, 523%, 527 


324, 326, 465, 518 
198, 199, 216* 

402 

205, 316, 445, 495, 595* 
394, 446 

155, 294 

185, 200, 209, 582 

84, 433 

367 


162, 209, 218, 239, 276, 278, 


337*, 386%, 550, 572 
293, 430, 447 

229, 260, 292, 465, 528, 
541, 620 

108, 137, 329 

87, 242, 257, 341*, 344 
87, 123, 278* 

87, 483, 484, 562 

170 

313, 598 





1 Cor. 
Lor 
1 Gort 


1. Cor: 
1 Cor. 
L Gor 
Cor. 
Cor. 
Cor. 
Cor. 
Cor. 
Cor. 
Cor. 
Cor. 
EOor 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
i Cor: 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor, 
1 Cor. 
Ler. 
1 Cor. 
i Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1. Cor. 


a ee ee ee ee) 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
L Cor, 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1Cor, 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
L-Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor; 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


ix. 25 
ix. 
ix. 


wonwtauwrh OD 


xi. 
aie 


oOmMNI Mark WO WH 


26 
27 


— Si 
aonw ws & 


17 


707 


, 111, 227, 582 
: 474, 484, 485* 
502 


106, 407, 476*, 549, 609 
67, 255% 
133, 198 


114, 118, 199, 268*, 281, 525 


71, 232 

175, 329%, 527 
318 

74, 250, 502 
143*, 369 

106 


175, 405, 452*, 515, 527, 550 


78, 301, 504, 613* 

324, 325, 585, 590, 594*. 
223*, 313 

118, 164, 189*, 237, 628 
110, 201, 368 

114, 135*, 200 

53 

442, 520 

124, 125, 189*, 200 
284* 

495 

496, 583 

313 

550, 593*, 614* 

42] 

150 

159, 216 

439 

483* 


582* 
205, 227, 453* 
114, 118, 122 


111, 344*, 381*, 411, 544, 594 


108, 150, 178, 216* 
311*, 320, 437*, 478* 
122, 513 

447 

409 

374, 411 

381*, 409 

319, 433 

271*, 364% 

582, 613%, 619 

396, 420 


xi. 18 274*, 347,413, 414*, 575, 576* 


Xi, 


20 


pt eel | | 


319, 320*, 444, 576 
77, 105 





N. T. INDEX. 

s x1, 22 86, 174, 285, 447, 511, | 1 Cor. xiv. 7 54, 129, 134, 279, 344*, 
ree 552, 594% pets ie 444, 553* 
xi. 23° 116, 139, 144, 153, 270, 370* | 1 Cor. xiv. 8 253 
co 432, 438, 582 | 1 Cor. xiv. 9 349, 378, 446, 561 
xi. 24 153 | 1 Cor. xiv. 10 123, 638 
xi. 25 308*, 386, 403*, 582 | 1 Cor. xiv. 11 217,218*,385, 387*, 444 577 
ete 297, 308*, 317*, 454* | 1 Cor. xiv. 13 460* 
xi. 27 202, 301, 441* | 1 Cor. xiv. 15 62, 279%, 285 
xiao 199, 452* | 1 Cor. xiv. 16 279, 480 
_ xi. 29 343, 552, 638 | 1 Cor. xiv. 18 345*, 627 
. xi. 30 267*, 274, 527! 1 Cor. xiv. 19 62, 122, 241, 389 
wkLeol 150, 253, 304, 638 | 1 Cor. xiv. 20 2b9* 
xi. 32 391 | 1 Cor. xiv. 22 184, 211, 212, 301, 496 
. Xi. 34 308* | 1 Cor. xiv. 23 496, 510 
1 Cor. xiv. 24 518, 609 
earns 373 | 1 Cor. xiv. 25 122, 515 
xii. 2 182, 306, 457, 526, 571, 636 | 1 Cor. xiv. 26 520, 538, 625 
Pp a RS 122, 390* | 1 Cor. xiv. 27 401*, 582* 
. Xi, 4 437, 540 | 1 Cor. xiv. 30 244 
ae area 437 | 1 Cor. xiv. 31 249 
. xii. 6 258, 437 | 1 Cor. xiv. 33 196 
eT ee 405 | 1 Cor. xiv. 34 229, 622 
. Xl. 8 105, 378, 401, 411, 419* | 1 Cor. xiv. 35 122, 320, 333 
A 419* | 1 Cor. xiv. 36 396 
veil te 428, 448, 606 | 1 Cor. xiv. 37 168, 278, 613, 626 
. Xii. 13 229, 440, 552, 621 | 1 Cor. xiv. 38 311* 
i lg Hs, 368*, 404*, 498* | 1 Cor. xiv. 39 323 

es ime AS 404* 
See | YS 304 | 1 Cor. xv. 1 71, 488 
. xii, 22 240, 245, 549, 550 | 1 Cor. xv. 2 265, 561, 605, 625 
all eo 240 | 1 Cor. xv. 3 412 
| Rls 27 125, 424* | 1 Cor. xv. 4 272*, 281 
Pa 28 105, 568* | 1 Cor. xy. 6 250 
.xii 31-182, 242, 265, 464, 466* | 1 Cor. xv. 8 106, 171 
1 Cor. xv. 9 337, 565, 615* 
xiii. 1 278, 292, 440, 441, 549 | 1 Cor. xv. 11 518 
<ul. 2 527, 610 | 1 Cor. xv.\12 123, 626 
xiii. 3 75, 226*, 289 | 1 Cor. xv. 13 123, 452%, 478* 
xiii. 4 520, 538 | 1 Cor. xv. 14 452* 
xiii. 5 520, 538 | 1 Cor. xv. 15 123, 185, 382, 445 
xiii. 6 210, 232, 433, 520, 538 | 1 Cor. xv. 16 292*, 478 
xiii. 7 520, 538 | 1 Cor. xv. 18 135, 390* 
xii. 8 520, 538, 585 | 1 Cor. xv. 19 233, 242 
ea hee Ct) 109 | 1 Cor. xv. 20 123, 527, 530 
xiii. 11 80, 268, 270, 296, 609 | 1 Cor. xv. 21 123, 586*, 610 
xiii. 12 153*, 263*, 377, 380*, 404* | 1 Cor. xv. 22 389, 421, 440 
xii; 18 240*, 242* | 1 Cor. xv. 23 527 
1 Cor. xy, 24 124, 308 
va hg | A453*,.577* | 1 Cor. xv. 25 297, 332, 523*, 588*, 589 
xiv. 2 549 | 1 Cor. xv. 26 527 
xiv. 4 122, 150 | 1 Cor. xv. 27 272, 308, 522, 582, 585, 588 
xiv. 5 24*, 129, 239, 577, 605* | 1 Cor. xv. 28 : : 112,114 
xiv. 6 387, 420, 440, 612 | 1 Cor. xv.29 123, 175, 279*, 382%, 480 


i Gor. 
Tor: 
1Cor. 
1 Cor: 
1 Cor. 
‘T Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
I’ Cor. 
1 Gor. 
1Cor. 
i Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
I’ @or. 
1 Cor. 
+°Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
‘oor. 
1 Cor. 
YT Vor. 


1 Cor. 
<1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


” 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor: 
2 Cor: 
2 Cor. i. 


XV. 
XY. 


XY. 


ee ee ee ee ee el 
. e . i . . . . 


0 


N. T. INDEX. 


183 

153*, 517 

108, 123, 285, 585 
640% 

312*, 314 
266*, 280*, 442, 443 
158 

294*, 340, 621 

437 

171 

586 

120, 196, 217, 562 
123, 266, 522 

538 

549 

— 284, 592* 

59 

78, 277% 

161 
555* 


89,123,385*,436,522*, 555* 


331 
541, 606, 621, 639 
114 

340, 341 

344 


138, 313, 373*, 397 
248, 307, 395, 401, 541 
60, 176*, 308, 310, 318, 

380*, 543 

324* 

446, 562* 

159, 355*, 405, 440 
283, 331 

437*, 585 

124 

62, 336, 373, 554 
313 

60, 125, 185, 515, 626 
153* 

5W)*, 531 


ms 79, 479% 


122, 139 
551, 586 

163 

189*, 378 

136, 155, 383, 527, 582* 
440, 572 

83, 324, 383, 403 

123, 150, 214, 410, 459 
933, 273 





. . . . . . 
ee 
. . . . . . . e . . 


Connor |O DO 


* 


Cocomanroroarrk WNW 


— 
= © 


eee i 
IO op & PO 


“i 18 


”) 


” 


Pita 
ive 2 
Plveo 


T09 


929*, 412 


70, 98, 122, 243, 247*, 420 


449* 
423*, 513 
216, 283* 

431 


109, 395, 445, 460*, 476, 513 


449, 476, 585 
272, 476, 558 
521, 584 

417 

340, 619 

206, 210, 555, 597 


161, 212, 323, 386, 482, 529 


367, 368, 437 


159, 208, 278, 282, 409, 410 


243, 278, 366, 379*, 550 
292, 497 

133, 209, 517% 

323, 502 

120, 332 

161, 278 

261, 264%*, 448 


145, 211*, 397*, 443, 453* 


145, 328*, 475 
251, 389 

397, 584, 610* 
110 


87, 200, 508, 614 


114, 134, 430, 431, 513, 638 


98*, 384, 420 

555* 

319, 367, 411, 597 

83, 191*, 228, 438, 527 
341, 480, 634, 635* 
280* 

236, 455* 

271 

379, 411*, 424, 425 
111 

329, 582*. 

46, 534*, 565 

296, 408, 565, 590 
308%, 565 

114, 565 

124, 174, 229, 254%, 370, 
419, 565 


565* 


85, 87, 253*, 386, 405, 488 


218* 


ig Ball 


N. T. INDEX. 


118, 190, 329, 482, 624” 
399 

168, 367* 
195*, 236, 412, 460* 
355, 485, 520, 638 
355, 485 

189, 355 

123, 213, 446, 522 
310 

112, 351*, 401 

586 

155, 442, 463% 

235, 396, 411, 635* 
208*, 484% 


122, 155, 191, 266*, 293, 524, 


528, 531 
147*, 353* 
560, 616 


83, 107*, 353, 394, 448, 459, 


638 
454, 531* 
352*, 430, 562, 573* 
120, 379, 565 

443, 562 

159, 405 

186, 311*, 334 

87, 352*, 594 

212, 582 

185 

161, 383, 445, 477, 558 
292, 301 

235, 390 

209 

145, 349, 618* 

262, 333” 

186, 382, 484*, 638 


332 
522, 565, 609 

483, 484*, 499 

78, 87, 181%, 389 

389 

378, 389, 552 

389 

573 

271 

388 

530*, 620% 

211, 221%, 350, 406, 584 
234, 443 

430 

74, 147*, 201 


2 Cor. 
2 Cor, 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 


2 
2 Cor. 
») 
2 


< 
= 
oonroanrrh wn = 


<i 
= 
_ 
(ee 


< 

he 
pe 
pie 
— 
— 


< 

pe 

me . . 

. . ° ° 
— 

_ 


< 
=: 

Pane lhe gale 2 ob. ace ae Ge ay 

— © oO Tom oP & bt =e 


oO 


wha peg 


ri LS 


“ 
- 


omrtTIan o oo 


ae 
-_- © 


— 
bo 


186, 197, 344, 544 

538, 609 

329 

217, 383 

352*, 568, 572 

528, 534 

135, 216*, 234, 243*, 584 
5849 612 

397, 402*, 460*, 477, 496* 
402% 

161, 320 

133, 278, 329, 354, 405, 
582, 601 

240, 243, 371, 393* 

227, 233, 292, 375* 

205, 377 

410 


. 218 
381*, 386, 425 

562, 571* 

133, 155, 198, 631 
122, 572, 576%, 584* 
288, 329% 
193*, 315, 450, 451* 
381* 

157, 341 

323, 422, 480, 560* 
313, 324, 368, 560*, 585 
307* 

424*, 585, 586 

589* 

414, 585 

242", 443 

378, 433 

391, 583 

351% 

240, 637 

383, 578, 585 

174, 397, 602 


138, 447*, 576 


ix. 2 65, 193*, 208, 222, 233, 272, 


383, 422, 629 
576 

318, 336 

176, 392%, 394, 596* 
446, 587* 

637 

469%, 588 

286, 572 

211, 572 

211 


N. T. INDEX. "11 





2Cor.ix.13 118, 136, 186, 381*, 572* | 2 Cor. xii. 1 124, 177, 454* 
2 Cor. ix: 14 204; 217 | 2 Cor. xii 2 83, 121, 126, 160, 176, 372, 
2 Cor. ix. 15 : 393, 585 Pry egy ae 417, 565 
2 Cor. xii. 3 111, 626 
2 Cor. x. 1 381, 397, 521, 558 | 2 Cor. xii. 4 83, 331, 626 © 
2 Cor. x.2 259, 321, 322*, 409, 443, 482 | 2 Cor. xii. 5 383, 454 
he RES 527, 602 | 2 Cor. xii. 6 199, 159, 453*, 502 
moor x. 3 411, 638 | 2 Cor. xii. 7 177, 220*, 550, 561, 611 
2 Cor: x. 4 212, 248, 565 | 2 Cor. xii. 8 336, 383, 427 
2 Cor. x. 5 ~ 186, 621 | 2 Cor. xii. 9 118, 209, 240, 271, 284 
2 Cor. x. 6 332 | 2 Cor. xii. 10 232 
2 Cor. x. 7 122, 161, 195, 293, 448* | 2 Cor. xii. 11 197, 282*, 422, 477, 538 
2 Cor. x. 9 310* | 2 Cor. xii. 12 106, 111*, 410, 575 
2 Cor. x. 10 522*, 563 | 2 Cor. xii. 13 403* 
2 Gore x. 11 161 | 2 Cor. xii. 14 332, 625 
2 Cor. x. 12 81, 87, 150, 209, 218%, 331, 637 | 2 Cor. xii. 15 156, 245 
= Cor.-x./ 13° 163, 165, 318, 396, 530 | 2 Cor. xii. 17 158, 574* 
2 Cor. x. 14 90, 342*, 384, 396, 431, | 2 Cor. xii. 18 215 
io ae 474*, 484 | 2 Cor. xii. 19 155, 209, 383*, 508 
2 Cor. x. 15 331 | 2 Cor. xii. 20 65,176, 215, 453*, 504, 556* 
2 Cor. x. 16 109, 318, 587 | 2 Cor. xii. 21 163, 207, 222, 343, 393, 482, 
2 Cor. x. 18 78, 87 >, 494, 504, 554*, 635* 
2 Cor. xi. 1 72, 302*, 442 | 2 Cor. xiii. 1 250*, 375, 440, 625 
2 Cor. xi. 2 117, 185, 258, 318, 534 | 2 Cor. xiii. 2 128 
2 Cor. xi. 3 133, 370, 504, 541, 621 | 2 Cor. xiii. 3 411, 418 
2 Cor. xi. 4 72, 109, 306* | 2 Cor. xiii. 4 86, 388%, 442, 541 
2 Cor. xi. 5 196*, 422, 446 | 2 Cor. xiii. 5 626 
2 Cor. xi. 6 898*, 442, 580, 585* | 2 Cor. xiii. 7 212, 321, 460*, 495, 513, 
2 Cor. xi. 7 208, 509* A. wae te 555*, 617 
2 Cor. xi. 8 405, 499 | 2 Cor. xiii. 8 382, 594 
2 Cor. xi. 9 134* | 2 Cor. xiii. 9 155, 161, 529 
2 Cor. xi. 10 248*, 397, 449, 459* | 2 Cor. xiii. 10 278, 494 
2 Cor. xi. 11 582 
2'Cor. xi. 12 158, 286 | Gal. i. 1 122, 371, 378, 379, 418* 
2 Cor. xi. 13 111, 513 | Gal. i. 3 124, 139 
2 Cor. xi. 14 112 | Gal. i. 4 133, 383, 412, 525 
2: Cor. xi. 16 $21, 588, 584, 605 | Gal. i. 5 108 
mor. xi: 17 401 | Gal. i. 6 638 
2 Cor. xi. 18 117, 233 | Gal. i. 7 109, 118, 513 
2 Cor. xi. 20 255*, 609 | Gal. i. 8 159,°295, 296, 517, 518* 
2 Cor. xi. 21 402*, 563, 618 | Gal. i. 10 80, 304, 509 
Cor. xi. 22 454 | Gal. i. 11 402, 549 
2 Cor. xi. 23 176,217,243, 423*,466,578* | Gal. i. 12 489, 492* 
2 Cor. xi. 24 369, 504*, 578, 589 | Gal. i. 13 269%* 
2 Cores xi. 25 74, 272* | Gal. i. 14 70, 243, 403 
2 Cor. xi. 26 188*, 217, 579, 609 | Gal. i. 15 367 
2 Cor. xi. 27 578 | Gal. i. 16 218*, 552 
a Cor, £1.-28 533* | Gal. i. 18 428 
2:Cor. 21029 153* | Gal. i. 19 113, 633* 
2 Cor. xi. 80 222, 538 | Gal. i. 20 449 
2 Cor. xi. 32 60, 61, 138 | Gal. i. 22 215, 390 
2 Cor. xi. 33 429, 606 | Gal. i. 23 353%, 545, 631* 


712 
Gal. i. 24 
Gal. ii. 1 
Gal. ii. 2 
li. 4 
Gal. ii. 5 
Gal. ii. 6 
Gal. ii. 7 
Gal. ii. 8 
Gal. ii. 9 
Gal. ii. 10 
Gal. ii. 11 
Gal. ii. 12 
Gal. ii. 18 
Gal. ii. 14 
Gal. ii. 15 
Gal. ii. 16 
Gal. ii. 17 
Gal. 11. 18 
Gal. ii. 19 
Gal. ii. 20 
Gal. ii. 21 
Gal. iii. 1 
3) Sh ee Bf 
Gal. iii. 2 
Gal. iii. 7 
Gal. iii. 8 
Gal. ili. 9 
Gal. iii. 10 
Gal. iii. 11 
Gal. iii. 13 
Gal. ii. 14 
Gal. iii. 15 
Gal. iii. 16 
Gal. iii. 17 
Gal. iii. 18 
Gal. iii. 19 
Gal. iii. 20 
Gal. iii. 21 
Gal. iii. 22 
Gal. iii. 23 
Gal. iti. 26 
Gal. iii. 28 
Gal. iii. 29 
Gal. iv. 1 
Gal. iv. 2 
Gal. iv. 3 
Gal. iv. 4 
Gal. iv. 5 
Gal. iv. 6 
Gal. iv. 7 


N. T. INDEX. 


388 


60, 380* 

353, 380, 443, 504*, 632* 
255, 289, 545, 569* 
236 

170*, 568* 

46, 229, 260%, 271* 
258, 397, 562, 565 
152, 587*, 592, 613 
142, 149*, 550 

343* 

446 

216, 301 

45, 236, 405 

521 

171, 186, 266, 280 
120, 500, 510*, 616* 
87 

210, 428 

168, 227, 619 

123, 558 


75, 83, 135*, 149*, 183, 223 
400, 537, 549 
365, 509 

424*, 445 

71, 114, 411 

301, 391 

325, 368, 407 
123, 136, 186 

383 

237% 

192, 402, 444, 553* 
166*, 375, 522 
250, 396 

123, 619 

124, 297, 379* 
116, 593* 

123, 139, 304, 508 
186, 397 

334, 396, 550, 558 
122, 213, 234 

80, 552 

445 


106 
407 

80 

86 

123 

580 

301, 379, 580 





Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. i 
Gal. i 
Gal. i 
Gal. i 
Gal. i 
Gal. i 
Gal. i 
Gal. i 
Gal. i 
Gal. i 
Gal. i 
Gal. i 
Gal. iv. 
Gal. i 
Gal. i 
Gal. i 
Gal. i 
Gal. i 
Gal. i 


Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 


Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 
Gal. 


iv. 
iv. 


vi. 


475, 486* 
263*, 604 
253 

503*, 626 
227 

71, 223, 400* 
84, 305, 585 
289*, 638 
320, 329 

141 

283, 330 
407, 537 

173 

104 

118, 248, 562, 576 
109*, 112, 179% 
576 

240, 485* 
192, 402* 
506 

445 


210 
227, 521 

73, 427, 429, 621 
120 

604 

637 

137, 214, 321 
558 

255, 302, 638 
394, 596% 

109, 151, 549 
219, 506 

307*, 460 
BIS 

65, 176 

200 

209, 476, 502* 


537, 580, 626 
170*, 613 
110, 114 

310 

483, 502 
284, 448 

278 

216, 290 
233, 287, 332 
123, 319 

437 

153 


Eph. i. 8 
Eph. i. 4 
Eph. i. 5 
Eph. i. 6 
Eph. i. 7 
Eph. i. 8 
Eph. i. 9 
Eph. i. 10 
Eph. i. 11 
Eph. i. 12 
Eph. i. 13 
Eph. i. 14 
Eph. i. 15 
Eph. i. 16 
Eph. i. 17 
Eph. i. 18 
Eph. i. 19 
Eph. i. 20 
Eph. i. 21 
Eph. i. 23 
2 9» 99 
Eph. ii. 1 
Eph. ii. 2 
Eph. ii. 3 
” 99 99 
Eph. ii. 4 
Eph. ii. 5 
Eph. ii. 6 
Eph. ii. 7 
Eph. ii. 8 
Eph. ii. 9 
Eph. ii. 10 
Eph. i 
Eph. ii. 12 
Eph. ii. 13 
Eph. ii. 14 
Eph. ii. 15 
Eph. ii. 16 
F ph. ii. 17 
Eph. ii. 19 
Eph. ii. 20 
Eph. ii. 21 
Eph. ii. 22 
Eph. iii. 1 
Eph. iii. 2 
Eph. iii. 4 
Eph. iii. 5 
Eph. iii. 6 
Eph. iii. 8 
Eph. iii 


N. T. INDEX. 


410, 517, 551, 586 

125, 386 

342, 378, 402, 611 

125, 163, 190 

389*, 528 

111*, 163, 164% 

152, 342 

397, 528 

258, 262 

58, 125, 134% 

213, 216, 528, 562, 586* 
166, 410, 531 

138, 135, 137, 154*, 234 
256, 376, 383, 412 

78, 152, 290, 416 

108, 298, 572, 584 

134, 190, 421, 529, 611 


125, 218*, 235,384, 430,573, 592 


420, 421, 527, 566, 615 


114, 166, 167*, 258*, 260*, 


513, 533, 638 


126, 410, 611 
238*, 401, 634" 


80, 127, 176, 191*, 215*, 238, 


386, 410, 550*, 573* 
201*, 225, 399, 443 
218*, 565 

235, 278 

65, 137, 254, 410 
192, 217*, 411, 562 
459, 477 


149*, 155, 163, 192, 386, 394 
i. 11 135,313, 562,566*, 578, 582, 602 
177*, 194, 197, 428, 465, 477, 


566, 578 
118, 341, 578 
114, 181, 228, 531 


136,138, 220*, 386, 388, 528, 621 


342, 416% 
607*, 609 

558 

128, 130, 185, 431 


83, 111*,136,149*, 193,342, 396 


122, 317 


189, 521, 566* 

448, 560, 434 

136 

128, 218, 221, 566* 

318*, 389 

65, 69, 242, 319, 362 

128, 235*, 362, 459* 
90 








Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 


Eph. iii 


Eph. 


Eph. i 
Eph. iv. 
Eph. i 
Eph. i 
Eph. 1 
Eph. i 
Eph. i 
Eph. i 
Eph. i 
Eph. 1 
Eph? i 
Eph. i 
Eph. i 
Eph. i 


Eph. 


Eph. i 


Eph. 


Eph. i 
Eph. i 


” 


Eph. i 


Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 


Eph. i 


Eph. 


Eph. i 
Eph. i 


Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 


Eph. 


Eph. 


713 
iii. 11 167, 256 
ni, 12 128, 137, 167, 186 
ili. 13 136, 166*, 234, 388 
mi. tt 404, 566*, 638 
iii. 15 111*, 116, 121, 615 
ili. 16 65, 78, 290*, 319, 378, 397, 417* 
ili. 18 128, 144, 331, 340, 572* 
ili. 19 185, 217*, 346", 638 
ili. 20 158 
lii. 21 108 
iv. 1 186*, 152, 163, 332, 388*, 566* 
iv. 2 202, 572* 
iv. 3 386, 572* 
lv. 4 417, 584 
iv. 6 375, 419* 
lv. 7 401 
lv. 8 225, 522 
iv. 9 69, 243, 531*, 592 
Ty.) 104 
iv. 12 144, 157, 411, 615 
iv. 13 190*, 297, 528 
iv. 14 460*, 477 
iv. 15 397 
iv. 16 256, 386 
Iv; a 161, 514, 526 
iv. 18 186*, 189, 215, 428, 526* 
iv. 19 213 
iv. 21 199*, 391* 
lv. 22 818, 321*, 322*, 342, 347*, 
yes 402, 410 
iv. 23 215, 263%, 611 
iv. 25 213, 342, 528 
iv. 26 120, 311*, 313, 494*, 584 
iv. 27 312, 491* 
iv. 28 234, 313, 353*, 501 
iv. 29 172, 363, 583 
iv. 30 125, 369 
ly. 31 312 
v. 2 386, 438, 605* 
v.3 441, 485*, 615* 
v.4 270 
y.2 122, 128, 166, 167, 172*, 265, 
ae 355*, 518 
v.6 501 
v.8 23 
v. 9 184*, 562, 565 
a | 143, 521 
y. 12 141, 146%, 319 
v.13 258* 
v, 14 79, 90, 123, 312, 431 
v.15 300*, 474*, 610 


a0 a0S SA Soe ee 


te ee ee 
+ . . . 


N. T. INDEX. 


584, 610 

217 

212*, 216, 351 
351, 383 

186, 351% 

154, 351 

122, 451, 530 
440, 451%, 582° 
30, 123, 138* 
482, 545, 57 
150 

278 

183, 262, 364*, 432* 
153*, 397, 443 
249, 315, 577 


182, 390, 537 

126, 316, 391*, 562 
289% 

189*, 313, 388* 
138, 537, 401* 

402 

310, 365, 552, 621 
192 

264, 537 

176, 189* 

235, 239%, 421, 496, 552, 609 
132, 189*, 313 
174, 432, 531 

416 

134*,384, 393, 531 
123, 166, 313 

122, 383, 410, 412, 437, 631 
384*, 386 

126, 136, 401* 

161 

124, 377 


136, 587 

122 

110, 392*, 393 

256, 637 

109, 124, 126, 193 
143, 161, 227 

128, 148, 319, 329*, 383, 420, 
439, 543, 627* 

189*, 204, 388 

240, 336, 386, 416* 
416 

133, 140, 201, 229, 378 
243*, 332, 549 

63, 578 

137*, 243 


Phil. 
Phil. 
| Phil. 
Phil. 
Phil. 
Phil. 
Phil. 
Phil. 
Phil. 
Phil. 
Phil. 
Phil. 
Phil. 
Phi. 
Phi: 


Phil. 
Phil. ii 
Phil. 
Phila. 
Phil. 
Phil. 
Phil. i 
Phil. 
Phil. 
Phil. 1 
Phil. ii 
Phil. ii 
Phil. 
Phil. ii 
Phil. ii 
Phil. 
Phil. ii 
Phil. 
Phil. i 
Phil. ii 
Phil. 
Phil. ii 
Phil. ii 
Phil. ii 
Phil. 
Pitt 


. 


ee ee ee ee ee) 
. . e 


15 
16 
17 


19 
20 


ea | 


Phil. ii 





Phil. iii. 


Phil. i 


Phil. iii 


| Phil. iii 
Phil. i 


Phil. iii 


Phil. i 


” 


Con nrnowh |W DH = 


22 


. 23 
. 25 


. 10 


no NHN KS — Be eS eS ES 
wpoowmtnt oo bw = 


i. 23 


559 
184, 332, 368, 561 
184, 209, 368, 431 


.18 90, 157, 216, 217*, 232, 387, 585 


128, 129 
128 

320, 333 

160, 169, 299%, 513 
240*, 245, 329%, 397,.578 
128, 161 

136, 234, 287, 410, 466 
109, 211, 477 

166, 211, 477, 482 

259, 320, 413 

112, 572 


122, 526 
155, 337, 525 

583, 537* 

477, 482, 498 

582 

177*, 209, 323* 

215, 342, 345, 387, 616 
122, 257, 443 

140, 438 

191*, 235*, 390*, 439, 606 
122, 124, 551 
151,301,313, 476*, 477,498, 594 
114, 350*, 383%, 430, 515 
122, 128, 141, 317, 471 
125, 410, 606 

128, 393 

227 

331, 344 

300 

317, 422*, 577* 

308*, 331 

192 

221, 288, 408*, 471 

70, 243*, 278, 346*, 548 
228 

93, 122, 191 


223*, 609, 638 

114, 209, 214, 216, 233, 485*, 
529, 593, 638 

344, 582 

196, 215, 520 

65, 123, 140, 402 

160, 168, 228, 274%, 281 

229, 235, 442* 

122, 133, 137, 139, 186, 390, 
392, 477, 482, 616 


Phil. i 
Phil. iii 
Phil. iii. 
Phil. 
Phil. 
Phil. iii 
Phil. 
Phil. iii 
Phil. iii 
Phil. iii 


Phil. i 


Phil. i 
Phil. 
Phil. i 
Phil. i 
Phil. i 
Phil. i 
Phil. i 


— — 
& C LD © 


iil. 


— 
or 


iii. 


— 
lor) 


iii. 


ar a) 
© oO =I 


111. 


bo 
o 


~~ 
- 
“ 
- 


bo 
~~ 


iv. 


~ 
x 
oonrnaor | = 


Phil. iv. 


Phil. i 
Phil. i 


Phil. i 


es 
ee AS 


“ 
~ 
“ 
“ 


_ 
bo 


Phil. iv. 


Phil. i 
Phil. i 
Phil. iv. 
Phil. i 
Phil. i 
nal. 
Phil. i 


Col. 
Col. 
Col. 
Col. 
Col. 
Col. 


or; i. 
Col. i. 
Col. i. 


Col. 
Col. 


Col. i. 
Cali. 
Col; i. 
Col. i. 
Coli. 
Colek 
Col. i. 


_ 

< 
ee 
IO oo Pp 


we ~ 

“ <_< 
i ho a 
bo = sO’ 


N. T. INDEX. 


92, 129, 189, 325%, 572 
262, 263, 276*, 394, 638 
321* 


136, 205, 400*, 407, 431*, 620 


280%, 285%, 585 

90, 316*, 513 

549 

183, 222, 530, 628 

114, 188, 532, 564 

124, 139, 141*, 155, 446, 
453%, 551 

324, 528, 624 


301, 390, 523, 530, 537 
. 69, 125, 313, 439, 545, 584 
537 

219, 235, 585 

128, 212, 405 

126, 186*, 280” 

160, 609 

160, 280*, 313 

87, 233, 317*, 323, 382, 546 
152, 158, 159, 321, 347, 385, 
402*, 597 

77, 180, 318, 520 

155, 345 

84, 200, 602 

228*, 414* 

597, 606 

237*, 275%, 366", 452, 528, 
530, 631 

65, 137, 280% 

137 

629 


344*, 412 

135 

137, 573 

60, 103, 382 

122, 135*, 390* 

137, 412 

136 

237, 259 

189 

54, 124 

116*, 235, 272*, 389, 419% 
150, 419% 

123 

‘ 71, 588 
178, 187*, 190, 212*, 397 
132, 216, 341, 443, 571 
188*, 318 

124, 448, 475* 








715 


Col. i. 24 136, 166, 167, 189, 232, 382 
Col. i. 26 227, 573 
Col. i. 27 166*, 168, 330 
Col. i. 28 167, 609 
Col. i. 29 167, 258, 397, 410 
Col. ii. 1 76, 453 
Col. ii. 2 58, 65, 410, 572* 
Col. ii. 5 155, 215, 236, 292, 442, 444, 469* 
Col. ii. 7 216, 343, 431 
Col. ii. 8 109, 128, 401, 437, 503*, 520 
Col. ii. 9 546 
Col. ii. 10 572 
Col. ii. 11 144, 157, 189*, 216 
Col. ii. 12 123, 190, 340 
Col. ii. 13 «127, 148, 218, 342, 391, 412, 

859; 433, 602 
Col. ii. 14 138, 220, 271, 345 
Col. ii. 15 141, 258 
Col. ii. 16 420, 502, 552, 615* 
Col. ii. 17 166, 532* 
Col. ii. 18 187*, 190, 232, 248%, 369, 

See rs 467%, 480* 
Col. ii. 19 83, 128, 141, 202, 224, 247*, 485% 
Col. ii. 20 209, 252, 261, 370, 391, 428 
Col. ii. 21 488, 501, 594 
Col. ii. 22 127 
Col. ii. 23 849, 575* 
Col. iii. 1 292 
Col. iii. 3 271, 272, 391 
Col. ili. 4 530 
Col. iii. 5 117*, 166*, 167, 313, 531*, 553 
Col. iii. 6 265*, 269 
Col. iii. 7 386 
Col. iii. 8 , 107*, 116, 120 
Col. iii. 9 397 
Col. iii. 11 80, 520, 552 
Col, iii. 12 176, 565, 611 
Col. iii. 13 440, 565% 
Col. iii. 14 166%, 393, 565 
Col. iii. 15 186*, 438 
Col. iii. 16 439, 566, 572 
Col. dilly 126, 307, 378, 420 
Col. iii. 18 182, 270* 
Col. iii. 23 307 
Col. iii.&4 370*, 371, 531 
Col, iii. 25 620* 
Col. iv. 1 126, 257 
Col. iv. 2 386, 410, 433 
Col. iv. 3 517 
Col. iv. 5 405, 424 


716 


Col. iv. 
Col. iv. 
Col. iv. 
Col. iv. 
Col. iv. 
Col. iv. 
Col. iv. 
Col. iv. 
Col. iv. 
Col. iv. 


1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 


1 Thess. 
1 Thess. ii 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. i 
1 Thess. i 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. i 
1 Thess. ii 
1 Thess. 


” 


1 Thess. ii 
1 Thess. i 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. i 


6 

9 

10 
ll 
12 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 


i; 


Ce a ee en | 
. . ° e 4 . . 


1 Thess. iii 


1 Thess. iii. 
1 Thess. ili 


1 Thess. iii 
1 Thess. iii 


1 Thess. i 


1 Thess. iii 


1 Thess. iii. 


1 Thess. ili 
1 Thess. iii 
1 Thess. ili 


N. T. INDEX. 


298, 316*, 318*, 585 

75 

60, 565 

84, 513 

103, 111% 

103 

102, 145 

107*, 337, 395, 550, 629* 
85, 626 

155 


136 

256, 344, 373, 376 

155, 187*, 190, 205, 615” 
420 

550 

111, 130, 175* 

133, 145, 420, 480 

122, 145, 298 

128, 134, 353, 594 


133, 626 

368, 411, 493% 

271, 340 

120, 488, 565 

344, 411* 

307, 541 

101, 198*, 204, 331, 622% 
205, 329, 482, 552, 587 
465 

128, 333 

122, 191, 258", 465, 551 
84, 154, 369, 390, 410 
355 

90, 137, 155, 329, 452%, 
594, 604 

243*, 427 

437 

155 

446, 513 


483 
113, 386 

184, 328% 

483, 505* 

371* 

128 

295 

57, 226 

155, 552 

139, 150, 266, 316 
155, 417*, 528, 624 








1 Thess. 
1 Thess. i 


iv. 1 


1. Thess. iv. 


1 Thess. i 
1 Thess. i 
1 Thess. i 
1 Thess. i 
1 Thess. i 
1 Thess. i 


_ 
as 
© OWH OP & 


1 Thess. iv. 


1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess, 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 1 


1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 


2 Thess. i. 
2 Thess. 
2 Thess. 
2 Thess. 
Thess. 
2 Thess. 
2 Thess. 
2 Thess. i. 
2 Thess. i 


mo bw t 


2 Thess. ii 


” 


2 Thess. i 


2 Thess. ii 
2 Thess. ii 
2 Thess. 
2 Thess. 
2 Thess. ii 
2 Thess. 
2 Thess. 


— 
= 
— 
So 


iv. 14 
tv. 15 


109, 432, 513 

84, 379% 
319%, 427, 513, 529 
| 274 

134, 139, 486 


53, 85, 115*, 171, 320, 433 


394%, 411, 417* 
497* 

56, 324, 339* 
133, 332 

541* 

387*, 506, 507* 


iv. 16 135*, 150, 247*, 385, 390, 430 


eye bes 


83, 135*, 391 
301 


339 

139* 

65, 506, 541 
460* 

195*, 196 
285, 502 
120, 125, 195* 
294*, 391 
173 

335, 386* 
202, 405, 538 
120, 427 

150, 286, 527 
353 

226 


136 

163, 383, 410, 533 
122, 448* 

237* 

475*, 486 

125, 190, 37] 
260, 386, 389, 565 
206, 397 

130* 


125, 274, 370, 378*, 421, 
493, 618 

106, 238, 239*, 499, 500, 
529, 545, 599*, 600 

253, 626 

178 

123, 258, 297, 550 

611, 639 

60, 158, 386 

189% 

236 


—— 


N. T. INDEX. 


2 Thess. ii. 12 232, 475, 477, 482 
2 Thess. ii. 13 124, 186, 417*, 527 
2 Thess. ii. 15 202, 229, 558 
2 Thess. ii. 16 69, 150 
2 Thess. ii. 17 155, 316 
2 Thess. ili. 2 584 
2 Thess. iii. 3 89 
2 Thess. iii. 4 187, 233 
2 Thess. iii. 5 118, 155, 185, 286, 316 
2 Thess. iii. 6 77, 482 
2 Thess. iii. 7 298 
2 Thess. iii. 8 351*, 493 
2 Thess. iii. 9 597 
2 Thess. iii. 10 161, 475, 476, 477, 478 
2 Thess. iii. 11 274, 347, 638 
2 Thess. iii. 12 143, 198, 381 
2 Thess. iii. 13 345 
2 Thess. iii. 14 119*, 253, 477 
2 Thess. iii. 15 228, 521, 527, 602 
2 Thess. ili. 16 150, 217 
1.Pim.:i.; 1 139 
1 Tim. i. 2 137* 
1 Tim. i. 3 315, 321*, 433, 488, 566, 570* 
1 Tim. i. 4 140, 488 
1 Tim. i. 5 139, 368, 570" 
1 Tim. i. 6 196 
1 Tim. i. 7 169, 253, 488 
1 Tim. i. 8 638 
1 Tim. i. 9 161, 211, 638 
1 Tim. i. 10 520 
1 Tim. i. 11 229 
1 iim, i; 12 848* 
1 Tim. i. 13 341 
1 Tim. i. 14 1383 
Beri. 1715 107, 234, 585 
1 Tim. i. 16 288, 549 
1 Tim. i. 18 224, 387* 
1 Tim. i. 19 406, 524 
1 Tim. i. 20 195*, 288 
1 Tim. ii. 1 256, 332, 611 
1/Ping, 32. 2 70, 386, 524, 593* 
1 Tim. ii. 3 4-584 
1 Tim. ii. 4 553* 
1 Tim. ii. 6 58, 383, 533 
1 Tim. ii. 7 527, 562, 565, 610 
1 Tim. ii. 8 68*, 283, 321, 332, 544 
1 Tim. ii. 9 68 
1 Tim. ii. 10 158* 
1 Tim. ii. 12 122, 206 
1 Tim. ii. 15 293, 516*, 631* 





T17 

1 Tim. iii. 1 204, 537, 585 
1 Tim. iii. 2 LIZ aoe 
1 Tim. iii. 4 117 
1 Tim. iii. 5 205, 279, 452*, 477, 565 
1 Tim. iii. 6 191*, 480 
1 Tim. iii, 12 117* 
1 Tim. ii. 13 140 
1 Tim. iii. 14 69, 243*, 331, 537 
1 Tim. iii. 15 166*, 243, 298, 627 
1 Tim. iii. 16 128, 124, 260*, 413, 538, 
Wastere 588*, 639% 

1 Tim. iv. 1 187*, 427, 428 
1 Tim. iv. 3 139, 622* 
1 Tim. iv. 4 343 
1 Tim. iv. 6 128, 164 
lefTimeiv. 7 257, 313, 405 
1 Tim. iv. 8 140, 213 
1 Tim. iv. 10 ° 410 
L Tim, iv. 1 313, 537 
1 Tim. iv. 12 537 
1 Tim. iv. 13 296, 313, 520, 537 
1 Tim. iv. 14 205, 377*, 537 
1 Tim. iv. 15 79, 155, 287, 385, 386, 
ant fon 520, 537 

1 Tim. iy. 16 537 
1 Tim. y. 1 527, 537 
1 Tim. v. 4 77, 347, 631* 
1 Tim. y.5 180, 233, 409, 410, 433, 611 
je yl a: 313 
1 Tim. v. 8 205, 239, 259, 477 
1 Tim. v. 9 477, 590* 
1 Tim. v. 10 234, 387, 609 
Lyin vend 347*, 432, 480* 
1 Tim. v. 14 537 
1 Tine vw iS 621 
1 Tim. y. 16 83, 590 
1 Tim. vi 17 206 
1 Tim. v. 18 ‘ 585 
1 Tim. y. 19 64, 313, 375*, 420, 605 
1 Tim. vy. 21 477 
1 Tim. vy. 22 200*, 209, 430, 501, 537 
1 Tim. y. 23 127, 498*, 501, 537, 548 
1 Tim. v. 24 171, 537, 559 
1 Tim. v. 25 514 
elim. vis 2 407, 537 
1 Tim. vi. 2 143, 202, 502, 521 
1 Tim. vi. 3 57, 537 
1 Tim. vi. 4 406, 518 
1 Tim. vi.5 78, 102, 196, 229, 427, 428 
1 Tim. vi. 6 546 


718 

Lo Timiyi. wv. 
1 Tim. vi. 8 
1 Tim. vi. 9 
1 Tim. vi. 11 
1 Tim. vi. 12 
1 Tim. ‘vi. 18 
1 Tim. vi. 15 
Viner, 17 
1 Tim. vi. 18 
1 Tim. vi. 19 
1 Tim. vi. 20 
Se Tim:e3, 1 

2 imide oO 

2. Tin, 3.4 

2 Tim. i. 5 

I -Timoa S 
2eLamMrawiO 
aemet, 11 
yee has ag Bay & 
2m tiowe 
2 Tim. i. 14 
2 Tim. i. 15 
Slime 16 
SD ade Le 
2 Xim,1,16 
o°Dimsai.1 
2 Tim iene 
2iTimwal. 3 
2 Tim. ii. 4 
2 Tim. ii. 5 
2 Tim. ii. 6 
Betws. 4 
2Tim, 91.8 
2 °Tim. 110 
2 Tim. ii. 11 
2Tim. 4.13 
2 Tim. ii. 14 
2 iF in. ai. 16 
2 Tim. ii. 18 
2 Tim. ii. 22 
2 Tim. ii. 26 
2 Tim. iii. 1 
2 Tim. iii. 2 
O75 im, iii A 
2 Tim. iii. 6 
2 im sai. 8 
2 Tim. iii. 10 
2 Tim. iii. 11 
2 Tim. ili. 12 
2 Tim. iii. 14 


N. T, INDEX. 


585 
75 


525, 


120, 183, 313 
202, 224, 312* 
107, 375 

246 


136*, 192*, 236*, 273, 334 


201 
202 
183, 253, 314, 549 


402 
372*, 448% 
155, 544 
582* 

189, 314 
116, 139, 534 


o 527 


319, 396, 438 

; 139 

140, 314 

195 

73, 78 

: 219 
78, 242*, 321, 365* 


133, 153, 313 
160, 319, 378* 

314 

287 

477, 556* 

556* 

78, 286 

313 

140, 234, 287, 605 

86, 143, 585 

464 

313, 394, 533, 537, 624 
78 

334 

223* 

621 


124 
520 

245, 638 

366 

66, 229, 230, 406 
155 

74, 420 

614* 

314, 365 


2 Tim. iii. 15 
2 Tim. iii. 16 


pS) Wire Be hg | 
2/TimAiv. 2 
Salim. 1¥e3 
2 Tim. iv. 6 
DeLim iv. 4 
2 Tim. iv. 8 
2 Tim. iv. 9 
2 Tim. iv. 10 
2/Tim. iv. 18 
2 Tim. iy. 14 
2 Tim. iv. 15 
2 Tim. iv. 16 
o/Timiay¥, 17 
2'Dim. iv..48 
2 Tim. iv. 20 
2 Tim. iv. 21 


Titus i. 1 
Titusi..2 
Titus i. 3 
Titus i. 5 
Titus i. 6 
LituBay as 
Titus i. 9 
Titus i. 10 
Titas:i. 112 
Titds 1702 
Titus i. 13 
Titus i. 15 


Titus ii. 2 
Titus ii. 4 
Titus i. 5 
Titus ii. 7 
Titus ii. 8 
Titus ii. 9 
Titus ii. 10 
Titts iil 
Titus ii. 12 
Titus ii. 18 
Titus ii. 14 


Titus il. 1 
Titus iii. 3 
Titus iii. 4 
Titus ili. 5 
Titus ili. 6 
Titus ili. 7 
Titus iii. 8 
Titus iii. 9 


120, 370 
96*, 213, 416 


537, 552, 630 
79, 314, 520* 
83, 481 

152, 274 
132, 224, 523, 638 
273% 

602 

103 

395 

78 

223, 314 
476, 501 

74, 259, 514 
621* 

219 

372 


402, 565* 

565* 

534*, 565*, 568* 
112, 258%, 288 
117*, 139, 386, 477, 525 
192 

202 

368 

332, 480" 

69, 154*, 640% 
217, 313 

88, 155, 518, 5597 


217, 322 

290, 525° 

101, 154 

228, 257%, 406 
64, 424, 477, 591 
154, 482 

131, 482 

132 

127, 344, 355 
130*, 344, 355, 544 
197, 288 


313 
120, 593* 
139 


66, 139, 163, 193, 390*, 402 


163, 378, 409 
157, 216 
205, 253 

68, 78, 524 


Titus iii. 12 
Titus iii. 13 
Titus iii. 14 
Titus iii. 15 


Philem. 1 
Philem. 4 
Philem. 5 
Philem. 6 
Philem. 9 
Philem. 10 
Philem. 11 
Philem. 12 
Philem. 13 
Philem. 14 
Philem. 16 
Philem. 17 
Philem. 18 
Philem. -19 
Philem. 20 
Philem. 22 
Philem. 23 
Philem. 24 


Heb. i. 1 
Heb. i. 2 


N. T. INDEX. 


102 
103, 313 
77 

385 


189* 
256 

139, 155, 345, 410* 
338, 416, 462" 

189% 

164, 628 

278, 638 

530 
189*, 270, 283*, 383 
270, 283*, 330, 463, 617 
403, 420 

313 

85, 227 

278, 521 

137, 198, 286, 549, 638 
594 

519 

519 


375* 
527 


176*, 228, 438, 52 


Heb. i. 3 125, 187*, 216, 237*, 256, 344, 384 


Heb. i. 4 
Heb. i. 6 
Heb. i. 7 
Heb. i. 8 
Heb. i. 9 
Heb. i. 10 
Heb. i. 11 
Heb. i. 13 
Heb. i. 14 


Heb. ii. 1 
Heb. ii. 2 
Heb. ii. 3 
Heb. ii. 4 
Heb. ii. 6 
Heb. ii. 8 
Heb. ii. 9 
Heb. ii. 10 
Heb. ii. 11 
Heb. ii. 13 
Heb. ii. 14 
Heb. ii. 15 
Heb. ii. 16 
Heb. ii. 17 
Heb. ii. 18 


240, 245, 271 
210, 308 

352, 405*, 588 

182 

226, 277*, 404 

435 

266 

228, 271, 367*, 558, 605 


89, 242, 243 


205, 340, 379*, 545, 621 


89 
442, 446, 447*, 454 


198*, 343, 399%, 462*, 534, 551 


320, 343*, 409, 627 

366, 448*, 585 

582 

200, 272*, 281, 288, 541, 552 
329*, 380 

202, 267*, 606 

209, 227*, 230 

159*, 387* 


Heb. 
Heb. 


ili. 
iil. 


Heb. iii 


lll. 


Heb. iii 


lll. 


Heb. iii 


Heb. 


iil. 
iil. 


Heb. iii 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


iii. 


iil. 
ill. 
ili. 


ill. 


ili. 


ll. 


Heb. iii 


lll. 


Heb. iii 


111. 


Heb. iii 


Heb. 


Heb. i 
Heb. i 
Heb. i 
Heb. i 
Heb. i 
Heb. i 
Heb. i 
Heb. i 
Heb. i 
Heb. i 
Heb. i 
Heb. i 
Heb. i 
Heb. i 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


Heb. v 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


lil. 
iil. 


Vi. 
vi. 


3 

4 
¥ 113, 199, 385 
8 

9 


rt 
es 
i. 3 
4 


pile’ 


194, 200, 314 
60 

67, 190*, 206, 240*, 271, 404 
350, 562 

340* 

126, 158, 527 


575 


385, 401* 
436 

85, 450 

462, 500 

194*, 329, 416, 503, 538 
111, 151, 189* 

571* 

53, 878, 426, 442, 510, 571* 
73, 230 

19 438 


oman w»xrnpr CH WH = 


— eet 
woo Ee © 


pat pd ed 
In on 


1 197, 319, 613 
2  —- 87, 219*, 221, 229, 260, 475 
123, 134, 265, 343, 344, 462, 500 

271, 370, 522, 588, 590* 


146*, 304* 
445 


10 421 
ei 162, 386, 388, 550 
.12 240, 947 
eis 147*, 406*, 442 
14 202 
15 91, 143, 475, 483 
16 66, 397 


410, 440, 593* 
106, 550, 582* 
318, 582* 


152, 158, 197, 371, 621 

159, 166*, 344, ¢37 

229 

115*, 215, 319, 450 

59, 169, 190, 324,339, 350,399" 
200, 521, 562, 584* 

14 120, 195*, 399, 405, 528 


— mw COND Of OC LD = 
eden =} 


— 
eo bb 


188*, 482, 531, 550, 635 
187*, 192*, 439, 550, 551* 
2 


5 123 
6 212, 319, 339, 343, 344, 396, 605 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


” 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 








N. T. INDEX. 
.vi.7 189, 200, 343, 376, 399, 438 | Heb. ix 
ese) 195, 351*, 584 | Heb. ix 
vi. 9 120, 202,229} ,, ,, 
.vi.10 163, 205, 319, 343, 438, 630 | Heb. ix. 
aviell _ 821, 405, 544 | Heb. ix. 
on Vos dex 442 | Heb. ix. 
vi. 18 222; 382,575 | Heb. ix. 
vi. 14 354*, 443 | Heb. ix. 
vi. 16 88, 192, 222, 242, 382, 575* | Heb. ix. 
vi. 17 216, 235, 243, 254, 387* | Heb. ix. 
vi. 18 134, 202, 386*, 549 ! Heb. ix 
vi. 19 66, 69, 549 | Heb. ix 
vi. 20 472* | Heb. ix 
”? »” 
vii. 1 110 | Heb. ix 
vii. 2 351*, 412 | Heb. ix 
vii. 3 488 | Heb. ix 
vii.4 61, 412, 528, 534, 549*, 560* | Heb. ix 
‘i. a 344, 486 | Heb. ix 
vii. 6 71,, K27*;,271, 273*, 486* | Heb. 1x: 
vil. 7 178 | Heb. ix 
vil. 8 _ 840 | Heb. ix 
vii. 9 273*, 317*, 378*, 449* | Heb. ix 
vii. 11 67, 261*, 304%, 482*, 562 | Heb. ix 
vii. 12 123, 192, 424*, 447, 453* | Heb. ix 
vii. 13 370, 409, 433, 447 | Heb. ix 
vii. 14 271, 397, 447 | Heb. ix 
vil. 15 240* | Heb. ix 
vii. 16 98, 99 | Heb. ix 
vii. 17 522, 588 
vii. 19 178 | Heb. x. 
vii. 20 104, 565*, 586 | Heb. x. 
vii. 21 377, 610 |) Heb. x. 
Vii. 23 829 | Heb. x. 
vii. 24 108*, 143, 330, 528 | Heb. x. 
vii. 25 382 | Heb. x. 
vii. 26 197, 438* | Heb. x. 
Vili. 27 154%, 491) |, Heb. x. 
vil. 28 228 | Heb. x. 
Heb. x. 
viii. 1 384, 534, 574 | Heb. x. 
viii. 2 163, 176* | Heb. x. 
viii. 3 299 | Heb. x. 
viii. 4 121, 304, 589 | Heb. x. 
viii. 5 191, 260,271, 285, 522, 562, | Heb. x. 
yg 588, 595 | Heb. x. 
viii. 6 89, 261, 271, 524 | Heb. x. 
viii. 7 304 | Heb. x. 
viii. 8 146*, 209, 436 | Heb. x. 
viii. 9 225, 401, 430, 571* | Heb. x. 
viii. 10 184, 225, 352, 573* | Heb. x. 
viii. 11 174, 507* | Heb. x. 
viii. 13 195, 271 | Heb. x. 


api 133, 435%, 575 
.2 129, 140, 236, 343, 435*, 446, 
5e 636* 
3 177*, 246*, 403 
4 67, 116, 158*, 385* 
5 68, 320 
6 267% 
7 131, 203*, 577 
8 176%, 187, 482 
9 166%, 401, 484*, 527 
. 10 635* 


11 189,242,410, 485,524,525, 530 
. 12 69, 73, 86, 154, 176*, 353, 
380, 495, 524 
218 405 
.14 75, 197 
15 185*, 287, 392* 
. 16 551*, 584, 585 
317 297, 394*, 480*, 549 
.18 271 
.19 74, 106, 193*, 401 
. 20 163 
21 443 
. 22 388, 554* 
23 58, 175, 177, 240, 585 
. 24 318, 528 
. 25 384, 401* 
. 26 271, 283*, 392* 
27 319 
1 163, 550 
2 134, 303%, 329, 345, 482, 508 
4 584 
5 253, 277* 
6 71, 222, 277*, 583* 
7 182, 183, 325 
8 71, 222, 351*, 563*, 583* 
9 244 
10 138*, 387*, 389 
12 344 
13 297, 344 
14 271 
16 225, 351*, 573 
17 506 
18 584 — 
20 528 
21 409 
22 73, 74, 75, 229, 621 
24 85, 397 
25 151, 245, 477, 582 
27 170* 
28 ; 392*, 420 


29 524, 562 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


Heb. 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


Heb. 


Heb. 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


Heb. 


Heb. 


Heb. 


Heb. 


Heb. 
Heb. 


Heb. 


Heb. 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


Heb. 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


Heb. 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


xi. 


<i. 


=i; 


xii, 
xii. 
xii. 
xii. 
xii. 
xii. 
xii. 
xii. 
xii. 


omnronarnr wh 


N. T. INDEX. 


549 

205 

142 

155, 156*, 524, 549 
192 
247%*, 355, 585, 610 
136*, 156, 523*, 583* 
196 


59*, 484, 485, 546 
260, 386, 377*, 412 
62, 329, 334, 539, 555* 
240 

71, 325 

319 

193*, 344, 402*, 484 
70, 228, 268, 298, 483 
376 

150*, 404 

120, 132, 162, 215, 589* 
268, 403* 

305*, 319 

204, 221, 530 

114, 269%, 437, 639 
405, 616* 

584 

71 

71, 341 

63, 205 

230 

228, 239, 384*, 592, 622 
477 


92, 106, 147*, 201, 272, 353 


251, 409, 431, 524 
67, 408 

280*, 439, 550* 
120 

62 


288, 353*, 367, 460*, 485* 


420 
116 

381*, 412* 
258* 


344, 379, 423", 432 
125, 206, 364*, 435, 622 


215, 230, 234, 429, 454*, 477 


405, 429 

205 

168, 443 

122, 300, 397, 481 

445, 610 

221, 228, 436, 527 
91 





Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


Xil. 
Xil. 
xii. 
xii. 
sab 
xii. 
xi 
Xil. 
Xil. 
xii. 
xii. 
xii. 
it. 
xii. 
xii. 
xil. 


Xlil. 
Xlii. 
Xili. 
Xiii. 
xiii. 
Xiii. 
Xili. 
Xlil. 
xiii. 
xiii. 
Xiil. 
xiii. 
Zi. 
xili. 
xiii. 
xiii. 
Siti, 
xiii. 
xiii. 


James i. 1 


James i. 
James i. 
James i. 
James i. 
James i. 
James i. 
James i. 
James i. 


James i. 
James i. 
James i. 
James i. 
James i. 
James i. 
James i. 


oonrTra ork WO tO 


ee ee eee 
aur © Ww — SO 


T21 


200, 268, 405, 409. 
196*, 531, 550, 559 
641* 

197*, 252*, 504 

206, 364 

147*, 317, 377 

66, 216%, 343* 

259, 433, 604 

201, 316, 566* 

566% 

432, 528, 566%, 609* 
134 

240 

259, 478, 582, 594, 633* 
262 

460 


205, 467* 

485* 

232, 507*, 585, 588 
191 

552 

391*, 495, 496 

199, 366* 

165, 168 

154 

189*, 342* 

64, 209, 530 

205, 260 

143, 156, 382, 494 
373, 517, 614 

69, 243* 

133, 134, 137 

202, 378*, 423%, 592* 
69, 243%, 317, 346* 
109, 629* 


133, 316, 588 
111, 432 

235 

477 

901, 482, 494, 610 
974, 443, 447 
446*, 447, 502, 534 
528, 534* 

132, 622* 

622* 

75, 277*, 470* 
531, 585 

97, 194*, 371* 
369 

88 

537 


122 


James i. 

” > 
James i. 
James i. 
James i. 
James i. 
James i. 
James i. 
James i. 
James i. 


James il. 
James ii. 
James ii. 
James ii. 
James ii. 
James ii. 
James ii. 
James ii. 
James ii. 
James ii. 
James il. 
James ii. 
James ii. 
James ii. 
James ii. 
James ii. 
James ii. 
James ii. 
James ii. 
James ii. 
James ii. 
James ii. 


James iii. 
James iil. 
James iii. 
James iii. 
James iii. 
James iii. 
James iii. 
James iii. 
James iii. 
James iii. 
James iii. 
James iii. 
James iii. 
James iii. 
‘James iii. 
James iii. 
James iii. 


James iy 


17 54, 80, 189, 348, 395, 527, | 
fs 537, 641* 
18 88, 170%, 537 
19 301, 329, 520, 538 
21 120 
23 160, 274, 479, 610 
24 278%, 281, 446 
25 140, 237, 388 
26 68, 125, 192, 477 
27 89, 161, 319, 429 
1 60, 176, 186 
2 446, 572* 
3 81, 106, 153, 430 
4 60, 185, 187%, 508, 572” 
5 163, 189*, 201, 212, 228, 510 
6 86, 174, 206, 278* 
9 342, 353* 
10 168, 202, 280, 308*, 447, 582 
il 293, 479* 
12 313, 378 
13 100*, 203*, 432, 483 
14 108, 321, 585 
15 350*, 452, 518 
16 580, 585 
17 116 
18 60, 280*, 367 
19 514, 541 
20 116, 183 
22 270, 433 
23 483*, 615 
25 106, 219, 344, 571 
26 116*, 440 
1 242 
2 479 
3 192, 541, 549, 599* 
4 307, 344, 472, 604 
5 524, 548 
6 54, 134 
7 132, 219* 
8 532*, 536 
9 222, 388 
10 332 
ll 128, 591 
12 493* 
13 137*, 169, 313, 611 
14 174, 432, 470, 494*, 511* 
15 350* 
17 576 
18 219 
“4 161, 529 


N. T. INDEX. 


James iv 


James iv. 
James iv. 
James iv. 
James iv. 
James iv. 
James iv. 
James iv. 
James iv. 


2) 9 


James iv. 
James iv. 
James iy. 


James v. 
James y. 
James yv. 
James v. 
James v. 
James y. 
James v. 
James vy. 
James y. 
James v. 
James vy. 
James y. 

ha 3) 
James v. 
James vy. 
James vy. 
James y. 
James y. 
James y. 


TP Peta i: 
1 Pet. i. 
1 Pet. 
Peres. 
Pet: 
1 Pet. 
1 Pet. 
1 Pet. 
1 Pet. 
1 Pet. 
1 Pet. 
1 Pet. 
1 Pet. 
1 Pet. 
1 Pet. 
1 Pet. i. 
1 Pet. 
1 Pet. 1. 
LPet. i. 


me 
. 


ee ee 
omoaonrnrnh & NWN & 


ee ck cn ol ee ed 
. ° a 4 ° . . 4 = e . 


2 


9 


14 
15 
17 


1 


Oo Ma 18 P W LO 


— — 
- © 


_ 
to 


a 
~~ 


_ 
co 


14 


NO 
ov onror wn = © 


470*, 482, 594 

256 

179*, 229, 307 

425% 

223, 312*, 537 

313, 537 

313, 537, 639 

257, 261, 313, 537 
117*, 162*, 249, 285, 286, 
516, 517 

109, 140, 447, 565, 590 
286*, 329*, 541 

147, 483, 494 


341, 516, 537 

274*, 537 

60, 89, 124, 212, 537, 539 
76, 371*, 537 
156*, 414, 416*, 537 

106, 174, 520, 537 

308, 314, 592% 

537 

372, 537 

228, 527, 537 

247* 

59, 79, 88, 222, 313, 372%, 
442, 476, 488 

169*, 285*, 541* 

408* 

209 

325, 466 

84, 436 

122, 197 


112, 118 
122..137%*, 188%, 237*, 286 
134, 402, 551 

520, 525, 611 

124, 332, 389 

232, 317 


139*, 235*, 340, 378, 385, 459 


226, 466, 485* 
156%, 187*, 342% 
355 

193* 

82, 134, 355, 495 
314, 343, 409, 477, 550 
238, 352%, 477 
111%, 402 

353 

138, 216, 525, 527* 
525 

123, 376 


N. T. INDEX. 723 


1 Pet. i. 21 529 
1 Pet. i. 22 186, 389 
1 Pet. i. 23 840, 366, 411, 421, 549, 610 
1 Pet. i. 24 277 
1 Pet. i. 25 213 
1 Pet. ii. 1 176, 527 
1 Pet. ii. 2 204, 314 
Pet: ii: 3 448% 
1 Pet. ii. 4 ¥ 122, 421, 427 
1 Pet. ii. 5 317, 527 
1 Pet. ii. 6 : 933, 252% 
1 Pet. ii. 7 160, 164, 529, 549%, 551, 571* 
1 Pet. ii. 8 397, 438 
1 Pet. ii. 9 381, 520 
1 Pet. ii. 10 348, 476, 485 
1 Pet. ii. 11 143, 352 
1 Pet. ii. 12 108, 342, 384, 387, 411 
1 Pet. ii. 13 124 
1 Pet. ii. 14 379 
jl Pet. ii. 15 161, 319, 465, 529 
1 Pet. ii. 16 484, 494, 550, 573*, 612 
1 Pet. ii. 17 314*, 538 
1 Pet. ii. 19 518, 550 
1 Pet. ii. 22 167, 616* 
1 Pet. ii. 23 251*, 590* 
1 Pet. ii. 24 149*, 210, 407, 428, 429* 
1 Pet. ii. 25 128, 156 
1 Pet. iii. 1 75, 154, 289, 351*, 352 
1 Pet. iii. 2 340 
1 Pet. iii. 3 195, 531 
1 Pet. iii. 4 386 
1 Pet. iii. 5 134, 154, 233, 268, 341 
1 Pet. iii. 6 224, 462, 494, 499, 562, 566* 
1 Pet. iii. 7 242, 352, 403, 534 
1 Pet. iii. 8 930, 520, 534, 586 
1 Pet. iii. 9 161 
1 Pet. iii. 10 197, 326, 604, 614 
1 Pet. iii. 11 143, 429 
1 Pet. iii. 12 , 125, 409, 586 
1 Pet. iii. 13 437 
1 Pet. iii. 14 146*, 224, 293*, 443 
1 Pet. iii. 15 209, 227, 534 
1 Pet. iii. 17 294, 604* 
1 Pet. iii. 18 215, 373, 383, 412, 433* 
” ”» 9 441, 545 

1 Pet. iii. 19 543, 545, 608 
1 Pet. iii. 20 125, 156, 431, 457, 530, 543, 
peasy 545, 621 

1 Pet. iii. 21 189*, 191*, 192, 194*, 528, 
ee are 548, 545, 549, 562 

1 Pet. iii. 22 543, 545 


1 Pet. iv. 1 120, 196, 217, 262%, 263%, 271, 

ee Sy Per 313, 412* 
1 Pet.iv.2 84, 225, 226, 230, 329, 482 
1 Pet. iv.3 176, 209, 215, 262, 318, 319, 


aor 334, 520, 627* 
1 Pet. iv. 4 484, 549 
LPreta1y.5 552 
1 Pet. iv. 6 123, 223, 281, 402*, 441, 522, 

gids. 630*, 639 
LPet. iv. 7 397 
1 Pet. iv. 8 108, 351, 372 
1 Pet. iv. 9 397, 611 
1 Pet. iv. 10 210, 516, 524* 
1 Pet. iv. 11 108, 158*, 163, 582 
1 Pet. iv. 12 209*, 405, 501 
1 Pet. iv. 13 200, 209 
1 Pet. iv. 14 109, 132, 401, 585 
L- Pet. re 16 440, 446, 502, 518, 519* 
1 Pet. iv. 17 324, 584, 586 
1 Pet. iv. 18 174 
1 Pet. iv. 19 122, 254, 301, 524 
1 Pet. v.1 140,200,334, 384, 528, 529, 537 
1 Pet. v. 2 314, 385*, 477, 610 
1 Pet. v. 8 175 
1 Pet. v. 5 253 
1 Pet. v. 6 261, 407 
1 Pet. v. 7 351*, 430 
1 Pet.y.8 124,189, 299, 528, 534, 538 
1 Pet. v. 9 123, 215 
1 Pet. v.10 58, 134*, 135, 148, 390, 538 
1 Pet. v. 12 278 
2 Pet. i. 1 . 130, 200*, 623 
2 Pet. i. 2 286, 545 
2 Pet. i. 3 109, 381*, 545, 617* 
2 Pet. i. 4 157,343,410, 428, 524, 545, 566* 
2 Pet. i. 5 142, 313, 443, 545, 566* 
2 Pet. i. 6 443, 545 
2 Pet. i. 7 443, 545 
2 Pet. i. 8 397, 489 
2 Pet. i. 9 158, 185, 454%, 480*, 553* 
2 Pet.i.10 128, 256, 290, 313, 506, 527, 

a Eaton 549, 551 
2 Pet. i. 11 69, 126, 534 
2 Pet. i. 12 205, 344 
2 Pet. i. 18 408*, 452* 
2 Pet. i. 14 551 
2 Pet. i. 15 89, 256, 321, 340 
2 Pet. i. 16 630 
2 Pets 17 212, 278*, 351*, 365, 369* 
2 Pet. i. 18 352* 
2 Pet. i. 19 243*, 297, 345, 551 


724 N. T. INDEX. 
2 Pet. i. 20 161, 196 | 1 Johni. 7 
2 Pet. i. 21 122, 173, 549 | 1 Johni. 8 
1 John i. 9 
2 Pet. ii. 1 351*, 443* | 1 Johni. 10 
2iPetian 2 399, 400 
2 Pet. ii.3 120, 149, 217*, 223*, 386, 422, | 1 John ii. 1 
Wats. 4, 579, 639 | 1 John ii. 2 
2 Pet. ii. 4 205, 216, 842*, 448, 478, 545, | 1 John ii. 3 
Tee 566, 569* | 1 John ii. 4 
2 Pet. ii. 5 82, 249*, 342, 344*, 545,566,569 | 1 John ii. 5 
2 Pet. ii. 6 125, 190, 210*, 340, 531, 545, | 1 John ii. 6 
a ee 566, 569 | 1 John ii, 7 
2 Pet. ii. 7 1938, 259, 369*, 545, 566, 569 | 1 John ii. 8 
2 Pet. ii. 8 114, 268, 545, 566, 569 | 1 Johnii. 9 
2 Pet. ii. 9 342, 569* | 1 John ii. 10 
2 Pet. ii. 10 237, 345, 594* | 1 John ii. 12 
2 Pet. ii. 11 243*, 395* | 1 John ii. 13 
2 Pet. ii. 12 159, 397, 440, 628* | 1 John ii. 15 
2 Pet. ii. 13 185*, 416, 430* | 1 John ii. 16 
2 Pet. ii. 14 174,192, 194*, 201, 238, 525 | 1 John ii. 17 
2 Pet. ii. 15 185*, 219 | 1 John ii. 18 
2 Pet. ii. 16 95, 388, 538 | 1 John ii. 19 
2 Pet. ii. 18 342*, 529* | 1 John ii. 20 
2 Pet. ii. 19 219*, 273, 344 | 1 John ii. 21 
2 Pet. ii. 20 273, 292, 428, 514, 534 | 1 John ii. 22 
2 Pet. ii. 21 239, 282, 320, 334, 482*, 627 | 1 John ii. 24 
2 Pet. ii. 22 109, 352, 466, 588*, 641 | 1 John ii. 25 
1 John ii. 26 
2 Pet. iii. 1 142*, 527, 537, 550* | 1 John ii. 27 
2 Pet. iii. 2 190, 191, 205, 318, 529, 550 | 1 John ii. 2 
2 Pet. iii. 3 376, 572 
2 Pet. iii. 4 124, 146, 267, 588, 591, 596*, | 1 John iii. 1 
” Chae 612, 632* 1 John Vs Be 
SPetesii. 5 120, 121, 217*, 351*, 419*, | 1 John iii. 4 
” ” » 446, 453*, 467* 1 John iii. 5° 
2 Pet. iii. 6 604* | 1 John iii. 6 
2 Pet. iii. 7 518 | 1 John iii. 7 
2 Pet. iii. 8 395, 502 | 1 John iii. 8 
2 Pet. iii. 9 197, 484 | 1 John iii. 9 
2 Pet. iii. 10 87, 120, 125, 514 | 1 John iii. 10 
2.Pet.iii. 1] 3842* | ] John iii. 11 
2 Pet. iii. 12 121, 158*, 400* | 1 John iii. 12 
2 Pet. iii. 13 524*, 527 | 1 John iii. 13 
2 Petoin, 14 219, 321 | 1 John iii. 14 
2 Petit. ib 228 | 1 John iii. 17 
2 Pet. iii. 16 110, 143, 405 | 1 John iii. 18 
2 Pet. iii. 17 216, 314, 427, 429 | 1 John iii. 19 
1 John iii. 20 
1 John i. 1 124, 272, 567*, 607*, 609, 611 | 1 John iii. 22 
1 John i. 2 562, 565 | 1 John iii. 23 
1 John i. 3 132, 287, 443, 562, 567* | 1 John iii. 24 
1 John i. 5 161, 199, 499 
1 John i. 6 376, 537, 610 ' 1 John iy. 1 


197 
253, 537 
461*, 537 
537, 551 


537 
558, 577* 
161, 545 
483, 537, 610 
185, 543 
537 
124, 524* 
267, 386, 524 
537 
639 
80, 146, 278, 400 
278 
185, 537 
529 
639 
124, 537 

73, 74, 304%, 317° 
371 
172*, 278 
114, 128, 604 
128, 574* 

225, 530, 628*. 
278 
277*, 339, 574*, 610, 612* 
287, 308, 314 


122, 460*, 537, 615 
122, 209 

114, 537 

267*, 288, 537 

537 

501, 537 

161, 267, 288, 537 
537 

514, 537 

161, 338*, 623* 
623* 

542 

273, 457 

185, 543, 622 

116, 412, 489, 502*, 537 
368, 386, 537, 582 
155, 203, 537, 582* 
214, 256 

161, 338 

161, 411, 529, 578 


514, 537 


N. T. INDEX. 


1 John iv. 2 346 
1 John iv. 4 239, 537, 632* 
1 John iy. 5 537 
1 John iy. 6 128, 480, 537, 543 
1 John iv. 7 537 
1 John iv. 8 475, 537 
1 John iy. 9 133, 161, 218*, 417*, 537 
1 John iy. 10 161, 527, 537, 555 
1 John iy. 11 292, 448 
1 John iy. 12 499, 537 
1 John iv. 13 161, 199, 366* 
1 John iy. 14 527 
1 John iv. 15 114, 307 
1 John iv. 16 260, 553 
1 John iv. 17 137, 161, 338, 566 
1 John iy. 20 274* 
1 John iy. 21 371 
1 John vy. 1 178, 537 
1 John v. 2 161, 368, 545 
1 John y. 3 161 
1 John y. 4 161, 178 
1 John v. 5 537 
1 John y. 6 114, 128, 144, 380*, 498 
1 John v. 9 271, 537, 619 
1 John y. 10 225, 474* 
1 John y. 11 161 
1 John v. 12 475, 537 
1 John y. 13 134, 278, 288, 549 
1 John vy. 14 161, 256 
1 John v. 15 295 
1 John y. 16 225, 475*, 523*, 530*, 537, 549 
1 John vy. 17 537 
1 John y. 18 343, 537 
1 John v. 19 437, 537 
1 John y. 20 133*, 157*, 162, 234, 274, 

a 287, 421*, 528 
1 John v. 21 314 
2 John 1 141, 562 
2 John 2 411*, 578 
2 John 4 866, 526 
2 John 6 146, 161 
2 John 7 134*,140, 142*, 157,346,483, 632* 
2 John 8 259 
2 John 10 4 479 
2 John 11 200 
2 John 12 70, 278, 283, 331, 378 
8 John 2 373* 
3 John 4 162, 338, 347, 595* 
3 John 5 397 
3 John 6 122, 345 


3 John 7 
3 John 8 
3 John 9 
3 John 10 
3 John 12 
3 John 13 
3 John 14 


Jude 1 
Jude 3 
Jude 4 
Jude 5 
Jude 6 
Jude 7 
Jude 8 
Jude 9 
Jude 11 
Jude 13 
Jude 14 
Jude 15 
Jude 16 
Jude 17 
Jude 19 
Jude 20 
Jude 21 
Jude 23 


Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 


oONouo Pp WOH = 


725 


370*, 383, 638 
638 

141, 278 

232, 429, 475, 494 
261*, 271 

378 

331 


190, 212, 421* 
256, 321, 330, 333 
130*, 140, 528, 534, 605 
343; 620* 

125, 188*, 216, 273 
230, 594, 623 

443 

209* 

189, 206 

176 

71, 211, 277*, 370, 384 
163, 222 

116, 572* 

205 

114, 116 

122; 345 

137, 397 

85, 370 


519 
68, 113, 182*, 536, 587 
197, 532, 536* 

530, 580 

222, 410 

268, 521 

184% 


514 
163, 231* 


76, 321, 545 

76 
155*, 296, 541”, 611 
595* 

87, 276 

321, 545, 551, 582 
366, 589 

506 

132, 525 


Aaah ye ci ae 


ditel3 
Migla 
. li. 16 
aie 
. i. 18 
lla 9 
eH) 
Alte 21 
» Lin 22 
ie 23 
ii. 24 
231.25 
101226 


. 111,21 


ecocansnrwnhd = 


— ps 
= © 


N. T. INDEX. 


83,103, 395,422,472, 610, 612* 


223, 227 
155, 214*, 376 
198, 579% 
108, 579 
127, 155, 520 
81, 535% 

331 

376 

339 

235, 528 

308 

574 


155 

89, 155, 334, 514 
230, 281, 506 
514, 631 

227 

65 

148, 155 


87, 289, 337, 526*, 610, 626 


237 


58, 112, 148, 506, 507%, 524, 


536*, 574, 603 
524 

155, 302 

334 

114, 117, 271 
226, 577 

470* 

384, 574 


79, 535 

68, 215, 221 

227, 250, 535 
114, 166 

108 

345, 398, 526, 536 
280*, 309 

210 

108 


408, 409, 525 
226, 585 

491* 

997, 491% 

65, 114, 166, 526, 536 
279% 

74, 114, 166, 516 
390, 589 

206 

535* 


Rev. 


Rev. 


Rey. 


Rey. 


Rey. 
Rey. 


Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rey. 


Rev. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 


Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 


Rey. i 
Rey. i 


fy AW 
v.13 
v. 14 


vi. 1 
Vi, 2 
vi. 3 
vi. 4 
vi. 6 
vi. 8 
vi. 9 
vi. 10 
vi 11 
vi. 12 
vi. 13 
vi. 14 
vi. 15 
vi. 16 


vil. 1 
vii. 2 
vii. 3 
vii. 4 
vii. 9 
vii. 1 
vii. 12 
vii. 14 
vil. 16 
vii. 17 


viii. 3 
viii. 4 
vill. 5 
viii. 7 
viii. 8 
viii. 9 
vili. 10 
vili. 11 
vill. 12 
Vili. 13 


Rey. ix. 


Rev. i 
Rey. i 
Rev. i 
Rey. i 
Rey. i 
Rev. i 
Rev. i 


Rey. 
Rey. 


ix. 14 
imei? 


127, 520, 536 
108, 347, 874, 409, 526 
74 


199 
148, 583* 
206, 587* 


29, 108, 182, 234, 388, 574 


420 
164, 182, 535 
83, 174, 289, 297 
523 

74 

366*, 527 

64, 128, 527 

409 


409, 552 


120, 148, 212, 341*, 602 


552 
250 


148, 520, 526, 527, 535*, 579 


73, 78, 125, 210 
128, 520, 610 
388, 399 

77, 506 

191, 550 


79, 212, 289, 514 
216* 

201, 272*, 520 | 
519, 527, 609 
515 

515, 536, 592 
184 


108, 182, 184, 362, 367, 515 


460*, 609 
117, 368 


343 
606 

396 

171, 474, 633 
75, 86, 223, 506 
604* 

324, 623* 

534, 591 

179, 248 

65 

392, 536 

518 


N. T. INDEX. 


Rev. ix. 18 83,362,364*, 367,371,429, 515 


Rey. 
Rey. 
Rev. 


Rey. 
Rev. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rev. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 


Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rey. 
Rey. 


Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 


Rev. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rey. 
Rev. xiii. 


i. 
1X: 
ix. 


orrnroaPr CF DD = 


19 
20 
21 


_ 
Oo 


“i 
_ 
_ 


si 
hae rama i a Tih ideal 
ont our WO ND = 


ia 
3 
| 
Oo 


xii. 
xii. 
Xil. 
xii. 
xii. 
xii. 
xii. 
xii. 
sain 
xii. 
xii. 
xii. 
Xii. 
xii. 


xiii. 
xiii. 
xiii. 
xiii. 


623 
83, 210, 289, 366, 460*, 622 
143, 491, 606 


525 
852*, 376, 552 
612 

70, 612 

396 

222 

71, 277% 

155, 316* 

198 

393 


536 
250 

436 

536* 

294, 541” 

375, 396 

152 

267, 589 

232, 409 

413 

‘ 83, 514 
179, 248 

526, 535 

533 

514 

72 


267 
525 

281, 334 

83 

148 

214, 327*, 519 

491, 616 

529, 602 

399 

66 

88, 148, 177*, 249, 370 
72 

232, 393 


65, 374, 410 
152 

237% 

210, 214, 584 
222, 405 





Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rev. 
Rey. 
Rey. 


Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rev. 


xiii. 7 

xiii. 8 

xili. 10 
Ki. 11 
Eni. 12 
xiii, 13 
xiii. 14 
xiii. 15 
xiii. 16 
Kis 17 


xiv. 1 
xiv. 2 
xiv. 3 
xiv. 4 
xivz'6 
xiv. 6 
xiv. 7 
xiv. 8 
xiv. 9 
yxy 10 
exive II 
eive2 


..xiv. 18 


” ” 


. xiv. 14 
wxiv, 15 
he a ae Uys 
. xiv. 18 
. xiv. 19 
. xiv. 20 


SEV, 
URN 


. xvi. 14 


Rey. xvi. 15 


Rev. 


Rey 


Xvi. 18 
xvi. 19 
7 xVis 20 


127 


409, 527 

148 

62, 83, 128, 388 

65, 623* 

149 

461* 

62, 66 

307, 480 

79, 128, 289, 409, 420, 529 
127, 290, 536, 594 


79, 536 

606 

70, 250 

472, 527 

538, 616 

88, 409 

126, 536, 552 
191, 609 

410 
87, 91, 191” 
210 

186, 536* 
197, 234, 289, 317*, 341*, 
390, 460* 
535*, 579 
212, 324, 388 
133 

155, 212 
526, 536 
372, 557 


341 
247*, 353, 367* 
214, 508, 549, 585 
72, 83 

106, 432, 525 

201 


607 

523, 524, 607 
530, 536 

538 

207*, 533 
225, 229, 318 
350 

622 

120, 133 

514 

538, 585 

606 

191, 611 

616 


728 
Rey. 


Rev. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rev. 
Rev. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rey. 

tev. 


Rey. 


Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rev. 
Rev. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rev. 
Rev. 
Rev. 


Rey. 
Rev. 
Rev. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rev. 
Rev. 
Rev. 
Rey. 
Rev. 


XVil. 


XViil. 
XViil. 
XVill. 
XViil. 
XViil. 
XVlil. 
XViil. 
XVill. 
XViii. 
XViil. 
XViil. 
XViil. 
XVlil. 


” 


XViili. 
XViil. 
XViil. 
XViil. 
XViii. 
XViii. 
XVili. 


<x. 
xix: 
abe 
xix. 
xix. 
xix. 
xix; 
nae @ 
xix. 
<ix. 
Rik: 
ix. 


omnroar wo WD 


bo bp WN KY BK sc Oe ES ES 
ON OND Y BP | 


24 


— 
al NS 


N. T. INDEX. 


281, 368 


149, 201 
201 

94, 226 

89, 201, 224 
208, 626, 628 
149 

65, 515 

78 

536 

520 

141*, 388 
114 


609 
190, 514 

515 

155, 205, 247 

163 

506 

29, 87 

87, 222, 410 

603 

222, 393, 408, 499 


234, 520, 536, 579%, 591, 592 


579* 


75, 86, 156, 370, 427, 499, 


506, 507 
591 

223 

183*, 232, 408 
506, 616 

172, 506, 603 
114, 506 

177% 


526 
76, 182 

250 

209, 536 

536 

545 

114, 582, 598, 601 
72 

536 

108 

133, 392, 525% 
141, 191* 


Rey. 
Rev. 


Rey. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rey. 
Rev. 

Rey. 
Rev. 
Rev. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rev. 


Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rey. 
Rev. x 
Rev. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rey. 
Rev. 


Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rev. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rey. 
Rev. 


xix. 
Six: 


XX. 


xt 
Xxii. 
XXil. 
XK: 
Xxii. 
Xxii. 
XXil. 
ari. 
Sak 
XXii. 
xxii. 
XXii. 
ve aie 
XXil. 


Rey. xxii. 


16 
21 


245% 
83, 201, 514 


65, 116, 408 
536 
536 
106 
297% 
514 

148 

353 
525, 616 
72, 368 
133, 516 
114 
477, 478 


244, 523, 527 
211, 524 

500* 

228 

76, 148, 190, 552 
343*, 520 

132 

247*, 536% 

536%, 514 

121 

408% 

65, 230*, 250, 534% 
249 

552 

506, 507, 562 

171, 506, 633* 


128 
66 

172 

120 

521 
598, 601 
538 
311* 
72, 318 
552 

289 

585 

393 

638 

82, 594 


CATALOGUE OF BOOKS 


PUBLISHED BY 


WARREN F. DRAPER, 


ANDOVER, MASS. 


These Books will be sent post-paid to any Address on Receipt of the 
price named. 


Angel over the Right Shoulder, The; or the Beginning of a New 
Year. By the Author of “ Sunnyside.” 40 cents. 


“Tt is as provokingly short as it is exquisitely beautiful.” — Boston Recorder. 

“ What a blessed thing is a sunny spirit, ever cheerful and happy, and ever dif- 
fusing joy over all around it. Such a spirit is the Author of “ Sunny Side.” She 
comes to us again as a living angel—in good omen over the right shoulder. We 
commend it to all mothers, and especially to all Mrs. Jellabys.”” — Independent. 


Appleton. Works of Jesse Appleton, D.D., with a Memoir of 
his Life and Character. 2 vols. 8vo. $3.00 


“They will ever form standard volumes in American theological literature.” — 
Biblical Repository, 1837, p. 249. 


Augustine’s Confessions, Srr SHEpD. 


Augustinism and Pelagianism. By G. F. Wiccrrs, D.D. 
Translated from the German, with Notes and Additions, by Pror. 
R. Emerson, D.D. pp. 383. 8vo. | $1.50 


“The two theories of these distinguished men are thoroughly presented in this 
poet oy a ; 
work, and are valuable to the theologian.” — Religious Union. 


Bascom. Political Economy. Designed as a Text-Book for Col- 
leges. By Joun Bascom, A.M., Professor in Williams College. 
12mo. pp. 366. $1.50 


“Tt goes over the whole ground in a logical order. The matter is perspicuously 
arranged under distinct chapters and sections; it is a compendious exhibition of 
the principles of the science without prolonged disquisitions on particular points, 
and it is printed in the style for which the Andover Press has long been deservedly 
celebrated.” — Princeton Review. 

“This is a valuable work upon a subject of much interest. Prefessor Bascom 
writes well, and his book makes an excellent manual. His stand-point in the mid- 
dle of the nineteenth century gives it a character quite unlike that of the older 
works upon the subset ts avaag Recorder. 

“ This work is one of value to the student. It treats of the relations and char- 
acter of political economy, its advantages as a study, and its history. Almost every 
subject in the range of the science is here touched upon and examined in a manner 
calculated to interest and instruct the reader.” — Amherst Express. 

“The book is worthy a careful study, both for the views it contains and asa 
mental training. The author understands himself, and has evidently studied his 
subject well. — Hvening Express. 


A 


Books Published by W. EF. Draper. 


Ellicott. Commentaries, Critical and Grammatical, of C.J. 
Ellicott, Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, viz.: on 


Galatians, Ephesians, 
Thessalonians, . The Pastoral Epistles, 
Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. 
THE SET in two volumes, black cloth, bevelled edges, $8.00 
THE SET in two volumes, tinted paper, cloth extra, bevelled edges, gilt 
tops, 10.00 
THE SET in five volumes, same style, 12.00 


These Commentaries may also be had separately, in black cloth. 


The Commentaries of Prof. Ellicott supply an urgent want in their sphere of 
criticism. Prof. Stowe says of them, in his Notice to the Commentary on the 
Galatians : ‘‘It is the crowning excellence of these Commentaries that they are ex- 
actly what they profess to be —critical and grammatical, and therefore in the best 
sense of the term, exegetical. ..... His results are worthy of all confidence. He is 
more careful than Tischendorf, slower and more steadily deliberate than Alford, 
and more patiently laborious than any other living New Testament critic, with the 
exception, perhaps, of Tregelles.” 

“'They |Ellicott’s Commentaries] have set the first example in this country 
[England] of a thorough and fearless examination of the grammatical and philo- 
logical requirements of every word of the sacred text. Ido not know of anything 
superior to them in their own particular line in Germany; and they add, what, 


alas! is so seldom found in this country, profound reverence for the matter and - 


subjects on which the author is laboring ; nor is their value lessened by Mr. Elli- 
cott’s having confined himself for the most part to one department of a commenta- 
tor’s work, — the grammatical and philological.”— Dean Alford. 

“ His Commentaries are among the best, if not the very best, helps a student can 
have.” — American Presbyterian and Theological Review. 

“‘ THicott is one of the best commentators of this class [grammatical interpreta. 
tion| ” — Princeton Review. 

“They fill a scholar with genuine admiration. Their patient examination of 
the text bringing out the most delicate shades of meaning, and developing the log- 
ical sequence of thought by grammatical criticism; their insight into spiritual 
truth; their candor and honesty and thoroughness in dealing with controverted 
passages ; their reverence for the inspired record ; their modesty and charity united 
with a firmness in adhering to truth; their brevity and condensed fulness make 
them just the guide a Christian scholar loves in studying the sacred page.” — 
Watchman and Reflector. , 

“The Commentaries of Prof. Ellicott belong to the first class of critical writings 
of the New Testament. The author is an able, independent, and candid critic, his 
learning is full and accurate, and his judgment sound and discriminating.” — Bos 
ton Recorder. 

“We would recommend all scholars of the original scriptures who seek direct- 
ness, luminous brevity, the absence of everything irrelevant to strict grammatical 
inquiry, with a concise and yet very complete view of the opinions of others, to 
possess themselves of Ellicott’s Commentaries.” — American Presbyterian. 

“A scholarly and religious earnestness, a thoroughness, candor, and moderation, 
in connection with their convenient shape and compendious comprehensiveness, 
give them a character elevated and unique among works of their class.”” — The 
Lutheran and Missionary. 

“To Bishop Ellicott must be assigned the first rank, if not the first place in the 
first rank, of English biblical scholarship. ‘The series of Commentaries on the 
Pauline Epistles are in the highest style of critical exegesis.” — Methodist Quarterly. 

“ The best English work of this character.” — New Englander. 

“Strictly grammatical and critical, thorough and fearless, concise yet complete, 
worthy of all confidence.” — Evangelical pie: 


Books Published by W. F. Draper. 


Ellicott. Commentaries, Critical and Grammatical, of J.C. 
Ellicott, Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, viz.: on 


Galatians. With an Introductory Notice by C. E. Stowe, Professor 
in Andover Theological Seminary, 8vo. pp. 183. $1.75 


“We have never met with a learned Commentary on any book of the New Test- 
ament so nearly perfect in every respect as the ‘Commentary on the Epistle to the 
Galatians,’ by Prof. Ellicott, of King’s College, London —learned, devout, and 
orthodox.” — Independent. 

“The grand idea of Professor Ellicott in this exegetical Commentary, is by a 
critical examination of the Greek text, according to the grammatical construction 
of the language, to ascertain the exact ideas which the inspired penman designed 
to convey; and beyond all doubt the author has brought to his work an amount of 
learning which is not surpassed by any critical scholar of the age.” — Philadelphia 
Enquirer. 

“As an aid in preparation for recitations in a seminary, or as a volume to be 
used in connection with lectures on the New Testament, as exhibiting a true and 
thorough scholarship, as brought to bear upon the sacred writings, or as inciting 
the student to imitate the example set before him by the author, and thus to labor 
diligently in this department of his education, this Commentary cannot be too 
highly recommended.” — New Englander. 


Ephesians. 8vo. pp. 190. $1.75 


“« Ellicott, possessed of a deeper reverence [than de Wette] and a more thought- 
ful piety, has adopted the same method [grammatical analysis], and has produced 
Commentaries on the Pauline writings, which, for accurate analysis and clear state- 
ment, have not as yet been equalled. The superiority of this method of exegesis, 
is, perhaps, more strikingly evident in the Commentary on the Ephesians. Only 
by this method could the language of this transcendent Epistle be made to give 
forth its profound meaning in clearest utterance.” — Watchman and Reflector. 

“The careful critical student of Ephesians will find Ellicott a most welcome and 
valuable assistant.” — Christian Review. 

“A brief analysis of the Epistle is all that is needed to render this volume one 
of the most perfectly finished works in the department of sacred letters to which it 
belongs.”? — North American Review. 

“The whole volume is worthy of adoption as a manual in the theological school 
and in the classical library.” — Lutheran and Missionary. 

“Tt is the best comment on the Ephesians, for students of the original, which 
we have yet seen—by far. Its learning is aftluent, its discriminations nice, and 
its spirit admirable.” — Congregationalist. 


Thessalonians. 8vo. pp. 171. $1.75 


“For clearness, brevity, scholar-like fidelity, appreciation of the real grammati- 
cal sense of the text, absence of all discursive disquisitions, and evidence of com- 
prehensive and profound learning without the slightest parade, and joined with a 
- childlike reverence for the word of God, these Commentaries are unique in the 
biblical literature of England. We know nothing equal to them anywhere.” — 
American Presbyterian. 

“ A learning deep, varied, and accurate; a critical faculty strong by nature, 
cultivated with great diligence, and exercised with singular delicacy, and with that 
unfailing modesty which springs from being thoroughly grounded in the great 
principles of the Catholic faith; such are the qualities that give worth to these 
weighty pages.” — The Church Journal. 


Pastoral Epistles. 8vo. pp. 265. $2.50 


“Passages which the reader may have thought incapable of any further elucida- 
tion, when submitted to his critical process, often are seen to possess a richness of 
meaning hitherto unsuspected.” — National Baptist. 


Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. 8vo. pp. 278. $2.50 


This set of Commentaries may mee be had bound in two volumes. 


Books Published by W. F'. Draper. 


Henderson. Commentaries, Critical, Philological, and Exe- 
getical, viz: on 

The Book of the Twelve Minor Prophets. Translated from the 
Original Hebrew. By E. Henprrson, D.D. With a Biograph- 
ical Sketch of the Author, by E. P. BARRows, Hitchcock Pro- 
fessor in Andover Theological Seminary. 8vo. pp. 490. $4.00 


“This Commentary on the Minor Prophets, like that on the Prophecy of Isaiah, 
has been highly and deservedly esteemed by professional scholars, and has been of 
great service to the working ministry.” — Bibliotheca Sacra. j 

The work is invaluable for its philological research and critical acumen. It is 
published in substantial and elegant style, clear white paper and beautiful type. 
The notes are learned, reliable, and practical.”” — American Presbsterian, ete. 

“This is probably the best commentary extant on the Minor Prophets. The 
work is worthy of a place in the library of every scholar and every diligent and 
earnest reader of the Bible.” — Christian Chronicle. 

“ It is altogether the best commentary in existence on the Minor, Prophets.” — 
Religious Union. 

“The Minor Prophets” is a valuable book. Dr. Henderson is very careful to 
avoid fanciful interpretations — at least this is his canon, and there is much good 
sense shown everywhere.” — Presbyterian Quarterly. 

“We have met with no so satisfactory a commentary on this part of the prophetic 
scripture.” — Watchman and Reflector. 

“ Practical good sense joined to the most thorough and extensive erudition that 
give so great a value to all his works, and not the least so to this. The work of 
the American editor is well done.” — free Press. 

“The only satisfactory commentary on the Minor Prophets we know of in the 
English language.” — Episcopal Recorder. 

“The volume before us gives abundant evidence of patient scholarship and clear 
conceptions of evangelical truth.” — Lvangelical Quarterly. 

“Dr. Henderson’s commentaries are rich in wholesome and true exposition.” — 
Presbyterian Magazine. 

* The notes are replete with the fruits of varied learning.” — The Presbyterian. 


Jeremiah and Lamentations. ‘Translated from the original Hebrew. 
8vo. pp. 315. $3.00 


“Whatever surrounds the reader with the national life of the Hebrews, enables 
him to understand the sacred writers. In addition, the critical student needs exe- 
getical helps in catching the sense of the author. Dr. Henderson has undertaken 
to meet these wants to a considerable extent, and has succeeded well. Those 
ministers who are in the habit of giving brief expositions of the prophetic writing, 
will find great assistance from this volume.’ — Congregational Review. 

“The late Dr. Henderson is favorably known to the American public by his two 
works upon Isaiah and the Minor Propnets. His familiarity for many years with 
Oriental literature fitted him, in connection with his daily studies of Scripture as a 
theological professor, to be an expounder of the Hebrew Prophets. — The Advance. 

“It is a scholarly and devout analysis of the saddest of the prophets. It isa 
valuable contribution to our biblical literature.” — Zion’s Herald. 

“His work on Isaiah was first given to the world in 1840; then came his com- 
mentary on the Minor Prophets (1845, reprinted at Andover in 1859), then the 
present work (1851), and lastly one on Exekiel. They are alike moted for accu- 
racy and breadth of scholarship, patient research, and a happy commingling of a 
critical with a devout spirit.” — Burlington Free Press. 

“This admirable commentary meets a want long felt by biblical students. 
Those acquainted with Dr. Henderson’s work on the Minor Prophets need scarcely 
be told of the ability and learning and piety which characterize this volume.” 
Protestant Churchman. 

“With some drawbacks of taste and judgment, and somewhat too evident theo- 
logical prepossessions, we commend the volume as affording biblical students the 
best commentary at their command.” — Independent. 


K 


Books Published by W. F. Draper. 


Murphy. Critical and Exegetical Commentaries of Prof. 
James G. Murphy, LL.D., T.C.D., viz.: on 


Genesis. . Exodus. 


“Dr. Murphy in his commentaries has a definite plan, which he carries out. 
The text is explained, translated’ anew, and comments are added on the difficult 
and mooted points. He is a fair, clear, and candid interpreter. His aim is to recon- 
cile the Scriptures with science by an impartial examination of the text.” — Ame- 
rican Presbyterian and Theological Review. 


Genesis. With a Preface by J. P. THomrson, D.D., New York. 8vo. 
pp- 035. $3.50 


“The most valuable contribution that has for a long time been made to the 
many aids for the critical study of the Old Testament is Mr. Draper’s republication 
of Dr. Murphy on Genesis, in one octavo volume. Dr. Murphy is one of the 
Professors of the Assembly’s College at Belfast, and adds to a thorough knowledge 
of the Hebrew, and of the science of interpretation, great common sense, genuine 
wit, and admirable power of expression. Hence his commentary is racy and 
readable, as well as reliable. . No volume will be more useful to those who have 
been troubled by the Colenso criticisms; aud no man has pricked the bubble of 
that inflated bishop with a more effectual and relieving wound than Dr. Murphy. 
It is a good deal to say of a commentary, but we say it in all sincerity, that this 
volume furnishes about as fascinating work for one’s hours for reading as any 
volume of the day, in any department of literature ; while its general influence will 
be salutary and effective for the truth.” — Congregationalist. 

“Dr. Thompson, in the preface, commends this work ‘as a timely antidote to 
much of the negative and destructive criticism upon the Pentateuch.’ Dr. Murphy 
is an Irish Presbyterian, who has prepared several books which show high scholar- 
ship and patient research ; and this book proves him to be a devout and believing 
Christian. His handling of Colenso’s difficulties shows his Irish wit, as well as 
his learning and logic. ‘The translation here given is very beautiful, and in such 
explicit language as to be a rich commentary of itself, while the abundant and 
rich information given in the notes charms the reader on with more than the zest 
of fiction. — Boston Recorder. 

“‘A Commentary on Genesis, embodying the results of the latest investigations 
and criticisms, and treating the record fairly and in a Christian spirit, has long 
been needed. We think the want is here excellently well supplied. Dr. Murphy 
is evidently at home in ‘ Hebrew criticism.”’ He is soundly ‘orthodox’ in his own 
doctrinal views. He rejects, with the contempt they deserve, the absurd glosses 
and inventions of rationalist theologians, whether German or English; and he is 
not afraid to stand loyally by all the demands of the original record, strictly inter- 
preted. We do not hesitate to say that his exposition of the first chapter of Gen- 
esis satisfies our own mind better than any other we have ever seen. He holds 
that the days of creation were literal days; a sufficient interval of time, as he 
thinks, being implied between the first and second verses of the chapter for all 
those immense effects which Geologists claim to trace, and the work of the six 
days being simply the preparation of the earth’s present surface for its present 
inhabitants. —Christian Times and Witness. 

“This work is very timely in its appearance, and will prove a good antidote 
to the rationalistic publications and infidel theories respecting the history of 
mankind as given in the Old Testament Scriptures.’”’ — New York Observer. 

“We confess to a peculiar satisfaction in this commentary for this thing: that 
the author does not feel called on to go, in his exegesis, beyond the text and the 
light of the times when it was written. The style of the writing is peculiarly 
good, being simple, clear, and quite free from scholastic words and hybrid Eng- 
lish, such as we find in Bengel.” — Boston Review. 

“Tn the critical study of the Old Testament this monograph will be found an 
important help.” — Evangelical Review. 

“The work before us is one of great value, and meets the long-existing want 
better than any work on Genesis we have yet seen.” — Morning Star. 


Q 


Books Published by W. £. Draper. 
e 


Murphy. Critical, and Exegetical Commentaries, of Prof. 
James G. Murphy, LL.D., T.C.D., viz.: on 


Exodus. 8vo. pp. 385. $3.00 


“Thus far nothing has appeared in this country for half a century on the first 
two books of the Pentateuch so valuable as the present two volumes.” [On Genesis 
and Exodus]. His style is lucid, animated, and often eloquent. His pages afford 
golden suggestions and key-thoughts..... Some of the laws of interpretation are 
stated with so fresh and natural a clearness and force that they will permanently 
stand.” — Methodist Quarterly. 

“TJ feel that I am richer for having it on my shelf of Christian armory. I wish 
every one of my brethren in the ministry had the same joy; and few need be 
deprived of it, for the books are very cheap.” — Rev. H. C. Fish, DD. 

‘Prof. Murphy’s Commentary on Genesis has been published long enough t 
have secured the highest reputation for scholarship, research, and sound judgment. 
This volume on Exodus takes its place in the same rank, and will increase rather 
than diminish its author’s reputation among scholars.” — National Baptist. 

“Dr. Murphy has done a noble service to his college and church in the publica- 
tion of this work.” — The Occident. 

‘“'This is the second volume of the ablest Commentary on the Pentateuch that 
has yet fallen into our hands.” — The Weekly Press. 

“ By its originality and critical accuracy it must command the high regard of 
the scholar and theologian, whilst the ease and grace of its style, the judiciousness 
with which it selects and unfolds its many subjects of discussion, will be sure to 
fix and reward the attention of the general student.” — Zhe Lutheran. 

“This volume is a fit successor of that on the Book of Genesis, by the same 
author. The two ought to be in every minister’s library, and they will be found 
valuable helps to Sabbath-school teachers and others.” — Vermont Chronicle. 


Monod’s St. Paul. Five Discourses. By ADOLPHE MONop. 
Translated from the French by Rev. J. H. Myrrs, D.D. 12mo. 
Do. 90 cents. 


“The aim of the author is to present an estimate of the character, labors, and 
writings of the Apostle Paul in the light of an example, and to apply the principles 
which actuated him, and which he maintained, to Christians of the present day.”” — 
Boston Journal. 

‘A book unsurpassed in its department, in any language, for manly eloquence, 
thorough research, profound reflection, a most earnest, glowing, winning, Christian 
spirit, united with an exact appreciation of the great Apostle’s character and work, 
and a wise, cautious, but bold and unflinching, application of his teachings to the 
times in which we live.” — The Translator. 

“This little volume we regard as a very valuable addition to what may be called 
the “ Literature of the Apostle Paul.” The number of books that have been com- 
posed upon St. Paul, is one of the many proofs of his greatness, both by nature 
and grace. But of them all, there is not a more vital and appreciating book than 
thisof Monod. Original and suggestive thoughts are continually struck out upon 
collateral subjects, while yet the principal aim of the work is never lost sight of. 
The account of the physique of the Apostle, in its relations to eloquence (p. 115 seq.), 
will interest the preacher. The translation is faithful and elegant; reproducing, 
in no ordinary degree, the finer and more intangible qualities in the style of a vivid 
and commanding orator.’”’ — Bibliotheca Sacra. 

“ A masterly and most eloquent delineation of the inner life of the great Apostle.” 
Evangelical Quarterly. 

“These Sermons are remarkable for richness of thought and expression, and for 
a correct application of the principles and practice of the Apostle to the events of 
our own time.’ — Religious Union. 

“These Diseourses are distinguished for genuine eloquence, thorough research, 
and profound thought, accompanied with a glowing, earnest spirit, adapting the 
lessons of the great Apostle to the spiritual wants of men.” — Christian Observer. 

«A very interesting book this is, and calculated to stir up the reader’s mind and 
conscience.” — Banner of the Cross. 


R 





Books Published by W. F. Draper 


Stuart. Critical and Exegetical Commentaries by Moses 
Stuart, late Professor in Andover Theological Seminary, 
viz.2 On 


Romans, Hebrews, The Apocalypse, 
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes. 


Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Third Edition. Ed- 
ited and revised by Pror. R. D.C. Ropzains. 12mo. pp. 544. $2.25 


“His Commentary on the Romans is the most elaborate of all his works. It 
has elicited more discussion than any of his other exegetical volumes. It is the 
result of long-continued, patient thought. It expresses in clear style his maturest 
conclusions. It has the animating influence of an original treatise, written on a 
novel plan and under a sense of personal responsibility. Regarding it in all its 
relations, its antecedents and consequents, we pronounce it the most important 
soompaaele which has appeared in this country on this Epistle.” — Bibliotheca 

acra. 

“We heartily commend this work to all students of the Bible. The production 
of one of the first biblical scholars of our age, on the most important of all the 
doctrinal books of the New Testament, it deserves the careful study not only of 
those who agree with Ptof. Stuart in his theological and exegetical principles, but 
of those who earnestly dissent from some of his views in both respects.” — Watch- 
man and Reflector. 

“ Not only as one of the earliest contributions of American scholarship to biblical 
criticism, but also as one of the best commentaries upon the most difficult of Paul’s 
Epistles, the work of Prof. Stuart on the Romans will have a permanent place in 
biblical literature. Prof. Stuart’s method combines the exegetical with the 
doctrinal and practical. His rare force and earnestness, however, are mainly 
expended in what may be styled critico-theological discussion. His tendency was 
somewhat to repetition and diffuseness—a pardonable fault in the infancy of 
biblical criticism in this country. Prof. Robbins has obviated this defect by 
carefully pruning the Commentary of redundancies, without in the least impairing 
the sense of the author. He has also reduced the length of some of the Excursus, 
which the progress‘of biblical science has rendered less important. On the other 
hand, in the Introduction, which he has almost entirely rewritten, and in brief 
notes scattered through the volume, Prof. Robbins has enriched the Commentary 
with the fruits of later criticism, and of his own researches in the same field. Ih 
now forms a neat duodecimo volume at about one half the cost of the first edition.” 
— Independent. 

“ We are glad to see a new edition of this valuable Commentary, without which 
no ordinary theological library is complete. The exegetical works of Prof. 
Stuart have many excellences, and it will be a long time before the student of the 
Bible in the original will be willing to dispense with them as a part of his critical 
apparatus. The Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans was originally pre- 
pared with great labor by the author, and the present edition has the advantage, 
of having passed under the supervision of Prof. Robbins, whose studies have given 
him a special fitness for such a service. Alterations have occasionally been made, 
with abridgment in some places and additions in others.’”? — Boston Recorder. 

“ All of Prof. Stuart’s works would be improved by similar editing, — cautious, 
reverent, skilful, sufficient, —and brought down to date in the literature of the 
Epistle. To all students at Andover under Prof. Stuart his commentaries have 
great interest, and (except, perhaps, that on the Apocalypse) no other can supersede 
their frequent use. ‘The spirit of the man is so intertwined with them as to bea 
perpetual stimulant and benediction to the reader. — Congregationalist. 

“In turning over its pages we recall the learning, the zeal, the acumen, and the 
idiosyncrasies of one of the most remarkable of the great and good men which our 
theological world has produced ..... . This contribution by Prof. Stuart has justly 
taken a high place among the Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, and, 
with his other works, will always be held in high estimation by students of the 
Sacred Scriptures.” — New York Observer. 


W 


Books Published by W. F. Draper. 


Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. By Pror. Moszs 
Stuart. Third Edition. Edited and revised by Pror. R. D.C. 


Roppins. 12mo. pp. 579. $2.25 


“The Commentaries of Prof. Stuart abide the test of time. Though somewhat 
diffusive in style, they contain so much thorough discussion of doctrinal points, 
so much valuable criticism on pregnant words, and such an earnest religious 


spirit, that they must live for generations as a part of the apparatus for the biblical. 


student.”’ — Independent. 

“Tt is from the mind and heart of an eminent biblical scholar, whose labors in 
the cause of sacred learning will not soon be forgotten.” — Christian Observer. 

“Jt is arich treasure for the student of the original. As a commentator, Prof. 
Stuart was especially arduous and faithful in following up the thought, and dis- 
playing the connection of a passage, and his work as a scholar will bear comparison 
with any that have since appeared on either side of the Atlantic.” — American 
Presbyterian. 

“This Commentary is classical, both as to its literary and its theological merits. 
The edition before us is very skilfully edited by Prof. Robbins, and gives in full 
Dr. Stuart’s text, with additions bringing it down to the present day.” — Epis- 
copal Recorder. 

“We have always regarded this excellent Commentary as the happiest effort of 
the late Andover Professor. It seems to us well-nigh to exhaust the subjects 
which the author comprehended in his plan.” — Boston Recorder. 

“Professor Stuart has held a large place in the eye of the church, as a man 
well furnished with all the learning required in a scriptural commentator; and 
we recognize his merit, while we do not always rely on the theology of his com- 
ments.” — Presbyterian. 

“One of the most valuable critical expositions of that master work of the Apos- 
tles that exists in our language. It is not necessary or fitting to enter here upon 
any extended statement of its character and value, as that is well known and prop- 
erly appreciated, but only to call the attention of those who wish to possess the 
results of modern criticism —both with respect to the Epistle itself, and the various 
questions regarding its authenticity, authorship, the churches to which, and the 
language in which, it was written — to this, as being all that is desirable at a low 
price and in small compass.” — Banner of the Covenant. 


Commentary on the Apocalypse. By Pror. Moses Stuart. 
2 vols. 8vo. 504} 504. $5.00 


“‘ The first volume is taken up with matters of an introductory nature, pertain- 
ing to the character of the book, its authorship, and the time when it was written, 
nature of its language and idiom, comparison of it with Old Testament prophecies 
and with contemporary apochryphal writings, history of the interpretation of it, 
etc. The second volume contains the Commentary and several dissertations on 
various topics connected with the subject. The Commentary will, doubtless, 
awaken general attention and earnest discussion both in this country and in Great 
Britain, the more so, as on some fundamental points, it is at variance with the in- 
terpretations of the Apocalypse which have had universal currency where the 
English language is spoken.” — Bibliotheca Sacra. 

‘<The first volume treats of the Apocalpyse in general, noticing its peculiar form 
and arrangement —with other and Apocryphal Apocalypses — and proving John 
the beloved disciple to have been its author ; while the second volume is wholly 
occupied with the exposition of the book in hand, and of six discourses on as 
many distinct topics of special interest, connected with the exposition ..... The 
spérit of the author — candid generous, sincere, elevated, and yet subdued by con- 
scious imperfection, to the admission of his own incompetency to develop the 
meaning of the Holy Spirit, except so far as he is moved by the same Spirit, and 
controlled by the changeless laws of interpretation. A more copious stock of sacred 
learning, we say without hazard, is nowhere to be found within an equal compass. 
Every page, so far as we have gone with it, is full of riches drawn from the ex- 
haustless storehouse of fact, philosophy, and revelation, duly arranged, chastely 
displayed, and readily pouring into any hand opened to receive them.’’ — Boston 
Recorder. 

W w. 


Pl 








- — 
| 


= 


ee ee 


Vt eS 
J » 





. . 
a = . 
= >" 
® a F 
‘ f ) pi § 
a a ,. 
: . 
° i hy, 
. . 
5 
rh 
. 
/ 
‘ 
‘ 


* 





i 
Pat 


» 
. 
’ 
‘ 
{ 
. 
? 











we, ia a 


ri ere + 5, doe 
be Be te 


aa 
2 


7” 
* 
> 





4. oo > ea apees c: es ube geREE geeeenenesesnteeenen 
es Speen ae 
ea 
resem eee — = 
ae ae 
pees tess en en 


ATT 


i 


SRETEPEOPUTTEOTIREREREDS 
iti 


hh 


I 


Wi 


A 


ERAREUAEOEEEARESE 
\s¢-URBAN 


F ILLINO 


PETEERITAES 


i 
TY O 


| 


SERUISEEPEREPSPUSERED DE 


L 


BPPEPRUINERI ERY 








1 














Wa 


i 




















— 
= 
— 
aoe 
= 
— 


















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































SS 


tesa 








